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

per cnn update:

Judge Juan Merchan is back on the bench, and court is back in session after the break.

Michael Cohen is back in the witness box, and the jury is being called in.

rc: during the break there was much discussion of melania trump, clips of her interview with anderson cooper were shown regarding the stormy daniels thing.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is back at the podium and resumed questioning key witness Michael Cohen.

“Are you familiar with an attorney by the name of Robert Costello?” Hoffinger asked.

“I was introduced to Robert Costello by another lawyer, Jeffrey Citron,” Cohen said.

“He told me that he was a criminal defense attorney and that he was incredibly close to Rudy Giuliani,” Cohen said.

Cohen let out audible sigh before questioning began.

rc: this is when cohen was being pressured by his family to break with trump. cohen’s family was increasingly upset about what cohen was doing/saying with trump at this time.

Interesting legal observation from Benjamin Protess, a NY Times reporter at the trial:

Cohen’s testimony was hardly a smoking gun, but it might not have to be for the prosecution to prove its case. Under New York law, the concept of accessorial liability does a lot of heavy lifting for the prosecutors, who need only show that Trump intentionally aided his employees to falsify the records.

Prosecutors can argue that if Trump knew about the false records and did not stop them, as Cohen says, then he aided the crime. I expect they will hammer this point home in their closing arguments.

I guess what I was thinking was that if the strategy dictated by Trump proves ineffective, could that be used on appeal as long as it was executed by his attorneys in a competent fashion?

I would think not, but - well, Trump.

Exactly. It’ll be interesting to see if this issue is raised on appeal.

cnn update:

Michael Cohen says that at the meeting, Robert Costello told him “this would be a great way to have a back-channel communication to the president in order to ensure that you’re still good and you’re still secure.”

Cohen says he wasn’t sure about Costello at the time.

He says, “there was something really sketchy and wrong about him,” noting that was because of Costello’s close relationship with Rudy Giuliani.

Cohen says that he did not disclose everything that happened at that meeting, because he believed anything that he said would be “spoken and told to Rudy Giuliani.”
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger introduces emails between Robert Costello and Michael Cohen into evidence.

“I am sure you saw the news that Rudy is joining the Trump legal team. I told you my relationship with Rudy which could be very very useful for you," Costello wrote on April 19, 2018.

Cohen said he took this as a message from Costello “again to reinforce the whole concept of the back channel.”

“The back channel was Bob Costello to Rudy, Rudy to President Trump,” Cohen explained.

rc: at this point cohen and trump are not speaking directly, i believe the last conversation they had was right after the fbi search. communications were in tweets and by surrogates.

On April 21, Robert Costello wrote to Michael Cohen: “I just spoke to Rudy Giuliani and told him I was on your team. Rudy was thrilled and said this could not be a better situation for the President or you. He asked me if it was ok to call the President and Jay Sekelow (sic) and I said fine.”

It continued: “He said I can’t tell you how pleased I am that I can work with someone I know and trust. He asked me to tell you that he knows how tough this is on you and your family and he will make sure to tell the president. He said thank you for opening this back channel of communication and asked me to keep in touch. I told him I would after speaking to you further.”

The jury was also shown a second email from Costello to Cohen where he said: “I spoke with Rudy. Very very Positive. You are ‘loved.’ If you want to call me I will give you the details. I told him everything you asked me to and he said they knew that. There was never a doubt that they are in our corner.”

“Sleep well tonight. You have friends in high places,” Costello said in the email.

“The friend in high places was President Trump,” Cohen testified.

So sort of like “The judge should have noticed we were doodling on a page thinking about lunch, and should have objected to the prosecutors questions on our behalf!”

Not sure if that will fly.

I refer you to my previous statement:

100% it will and it won’t be the most ridiculous thing either. Everything they could possibly think of will be part of the appeal. It will be the throw shit against the wall approach.

I’m pretty sure the judge already said something to Trump’s team last week about how they weren’t objecting enough. It might have been in response to one of their many requests for a mistrial.

Funny joke, but not consist w/ my experience of legal practice.
Some reps bill/overbill for everything/nothing. Others bill less aggressively.

Yes he did. It’s like if you think it’s a problem now, why didn’t you object then? If a bunch of objections were overruled, they would maybe have a case. I think most of their objections have been sustained including not admitting certain documents into evidence.

cnn update:

On June 13, 2018, Robert Costello emailed Michael Cohen: “Since you jumped off the phone rather abruptly, I did not get a chance to tell you that my friend has communicated to me that he is meeting with his client this evening and he added that if there was anything you wanted to convey you should tell me and my friend will bring it up for discussion this evening.”

The “friend” referred to in the email was Rudy Giuliani, and his client was Trump, Cohen says.“Donald J Trump — President Trump,” Cohen said, correcting himself.

Hoffinger asked Cohen why Costello didn’t just say Giuliani and Trump directly in the email.

“Sort of to be covert, it’s all backchannel.” Cohen added, “I-spy-ish.”

Michael Cohen says one of Robert Costello’s emails used cryptic messaging referencing Costello’s “friend” and his “friend’s client.”

Cohen testifies that this seemed to encourage Cohen to get a message to Trump through Rudy Giuliani.

By his recollection the email referenced, “the potential of pre-pardons, I believe."

“Please remember if you want or need to communicate something, please let me know,” Costello’s email reads.

Cohen says that meant to communicate to Giuliani — and ultimately “President Trump.”

Michael Cohen said Robert Costello “had expressed clearly to Mr. Giuliani that he was on the team.”

“The concern here was that I was going to go to another lawyer and retain another lawyer to represent me in this matter,” Cohen testified.

On June 14, Costello sent Cohen an email with a YouTube link called “Giuliani on possibility of Cohen cooperating Muller probe."

Cohen emailed him back, "Why send this to me?”

Costello responded with a lengthy email. “It seems clear to me that you are under the impression that Trump and Giuliani are trying to discredit you and throw you under the bus to use your phrase. I think you are wrong because you are believing the narrative promoted by the left wing media. They want you to believe what they writing. Many of them are already writing that you are cooperating,” the email began.

Cohen said the email was “part of the pressure campaign that everyone is lying to you, that you are still regarded.”

“The president still supports you,” Cohen added that it meant, "Don’t flip, Don’t speak, Don’t cooperate.”

At some point, Michael Cohen says he had a conversation with his family about “this unique situation.”

“And my family — my wife, my daughter, my son — all said to me, 'Why are you holding on to this loyalty? What are you doing? We’re supposed to be your first loyalty.”

Cohen says his family told him “that it was about time” he listen to them.

rc: after the meeting with his family cohen decided not to lie anymore.

the defence has an objection, sidebar happening.

there are more objections today than yest…

marchan has sustained the objection, the objection came after this bit, from cnn update:

Michael Cohen says he made his move to plead guilty after talking to his family and deciding he would no longer lie for Trump.

“I made a decision based again on the conversation I had with my family that I would not lie for President Trump anymore,” he says.

Trump, who did not react as Cohen was describing how he would no longer remain loyal, is now chatting with his attorney Emil Bove.

Missed that! It’s a fast moving thread. Apologies.

Now we are finally getting to why he decided to flip. This line of questioning should be the end of the direct examination. We may get cross later today

“Screw Israel! The hell with Afghanistan! I don’t care about the upcoming G7 conference! Puerto Rico’s reeling from a hurricane? So what? I’ve got a crime ring to run!”

[sarcasm off]

More seriously, I think an observation made upthread, about Trump instructing his lawyers not to object, is the most likely reason why they are not objecting. My guess is that Trump is hoping that the lack of objections will somehow result in a mistrial, or will score him some points on appeal.

But Trump is not a lawyer, and he does not think like one. His lawyers can and do, but Trump doesn’t.

I recall Professor Kingsfield’s famous speech to first year law students on their first day of school in The Paper Chase: “You teach yourselves the law, but I will train your minds. You come in here with a skull full of mush, and when you leave, you leave thinking like a lawyer.”

Having been through law school myself, and having been called to the bar, I can attest that Professor Kingsfield is correct. If Trump is instructing his lawyers not to object, then he’s just “playing lawyer” without being able to think like one. Frankly, I’m surprised (well, maybe not) that his lawyers are listening to him in this regard.

I thought it was “…, and if you survive, you leave thinking like a lawyer.”

D’oh! You are correct, @Robot_Arm . Thanks for that.

according to the “talking feds” podcast, jonathan alter states there are cracks in the defence team. especially between nechles and trump. around 21:49 of the pod cast. eye of the storm: from inside the courtroom ii may 13th episode.

All Episodes — Talking Feds

I can’t believe that it would occur to Trump to put together the train of thought of don’t object so I can have a mistrial or a successful appeal. The lawyers are probably doing it as part of a different strategy as mentioned upthread like it would play poorly with the jury.

But surely the why is less important, they aren’t arguing over who is to blame and who should have done what. For the appeal wouldn’t the important thing be the fact that these statements were made in front of the jury and that prejudices them against Trump.

That would not seem like a completely ridiculous cause for appeal to me. But IANAL