Interesting. The same thing happened to me years ago during a deposition in New York (a place I don’t really practice). The NY lawyer mentioned as the witness and I were leaving to go on a break for me not to speak to the witness, etc (he wasn’t saying don’t coach, it was much blander). I didn’t know what to make of it as I had never heard that before and didn’t respond.
I heard Lauren Bobert from outside the courthouse banging the drum that no specific crime has been alleged.
She said that “the defendant doesn’t even know what crime has been committed.”
I sarcastically wonder why she didn’t claim that the defendant didn’t know what crime was alleged to have been committed.
I took it as meaning they’re dicks.
We need vulva-shaped balloons with Trump, his attorneys, and his congressional enablers.
Somebody will just grab them.
Well, I hear if you are a star, they will just let you.
I was interested in this anecdote, so I asked Quote Investigator to look into the origins.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/05/16/legal-latin/#more-444883
Not Marshall Hall.
So I heard a talking head on the teevee note that the gotcha moment with Cohen, when he was worried about a teenage robocaller and called Trump’s bodyguard Keith Schiller to discuss, was October 24, but the payment was made by Cohen to Stormy on October 27. On October 26, the day prior, Cohen spoke directly to Trump.
That matches other reporting.
But let’s assume that the jury doesn’t find Cohen to be trustworthy. In fact, let’s assume they decide he’s just out for himself.
We still have independent evidence that Stormy had a fling with Trump (Stormy’s testimony), and that Cohen paid her pursuant to a non disclosure agreement (we have the proof of the wire and the testimony of the other participants).
Cohen did that while in regular contact with Trump (phone records) and with his surrogates during the campaign, who sought his assistance to help with damage control (emails).
Then, on the bank statement that showed this payment (itself a piece of evidence) Trump’s top finance guy scribbles down a repayment plan, and Trump did repay this money (we have the checks).
Trump did this while still personally scrutinizing all of his expenses (testimony from workers in the org), as was his habit (books quoting Donald’s own words).
Now, it seems to me that at this point you are asked to draw one of two conclusions.
One is that Cohen was doing this all of his own accord, and tricked everybody else within Trump’s orbit when he concocted a repayment plan. The other is that he did this as a function of his campaign role and in service to Trump, who agreed to obscure the repayment.
The campaign role part is consistent with the outreach to him from Hope Hicks once the Access Hollywood story broke (she asked him to help with a statement in reply). It also is consistent with how Trump appears to do business,. And it explains why Cohen would be so motivated to incur such a big debt, and why Trump repaid.
But if you take the position that Cohen did it of his own accord, it would seem that you are confronted with some questions.
For being such a groveling man, who is presumably motivated by jealousy of trump, why wouldn’t he have told Trump what he did? How is he advancing his position by keeping it secret from donald?
And, two, why did Trump repay him? The DA has introduced as evidence a bank statement that confirmed the wire to Daniels, on which Weisselberg wrote up a repayment (adding in a bonus, other fees and a cushion for taxes). This calculation exactly matches the repayments to Cohen. This isn’t Cohen’s salary working for the Trump Org, and he isn’t working for Trump in Washington. What are the checks for?
At the end of the day, I truly think the most logical conclusion is that, yes, Cohen was a dirt bag and a liar, but he did it in service to Trump. And, yes, he’s bitter and biased against Trump, because he went to jail for him while Trump did nothing, but that just became the motivation to disclose the dirty tricks he pulled on Trump’s behalf.
Good summation.
It is. And why I don’t think anything the defense has presented is sufficient to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Interesting. It’s a general rule in Canada (set out in the Model Code of Conduct) that you can talk with your own witness while they’re testifying in chief, but as soon as they’re under cross you can’t talk with them until they’re done testifying.
I always advise witnesses of that rule so they don’t come up to me during a break in cross.
You can ask leave of the court to speak to your witness on cross, but you have to explain what the reason is. One time when it came up in a case I was on, the judge allowed the discussion, provided opposing counsel could listen to the discussion. (It was something humdrum about ensuring the witness had documents with him the next day that the opposing counsel wanted to examine him on.)
All they have really established is that Cohen said mean things about Trump. If I were on the jury my response would be “yes,and? Trump screwed him over so he flipped on him. Yes he is scummy. He did crimes for Trump. And was locked up for them. Now we will lock up the guy in charge of the whole scummy affair “
Exactly. And juries do get this.
I think the defense lawyers (under direction of their client) aren’t targeting the jury, but are playing to the MAGA base. Trump thinks jail is not going to happen, so he’s looking past the trial and is campaigning from within the courtroom.
In this case it’s the cover up of the cover up. It’s not that Trump had sex with Daniels and it’s not that he paid her $130,000 for her silence - it’s that he was involved in creating fraudulent records to hide the purpose of the payment.
This part was excluded from evidence, though, wasn’t it?
that part was exhibit 35. the smoking gun of this case.
Ah, I thought that had been excluded because Weisselberg wasn’t being called to testify. Or am I confusing that with some other document?
I think the judge excluded (tentatively) the Weisselberg NDA
I thought it was his severance agreement.