Googling, I see that is correct. However, the severance agreement contained a non-disparagement clause. So, we’re both right.
Agreed. This document is the bank’s bank statement showing the $130,000 withdrawal from Cohen’s account, reflecting the payment to Stormy’s lawyer. The handwriting at the bottom left is Weissslberg’s (authenticated by some of the Trump org employees), and includes in chicken scratch the calculation of the total of $420,000, over 12 months. Cohen got $35,000 per month from Trump. (The handwriting at the bottom right is Cohen’s)
Chicken scratch indeed. It never ceases to amaze me how sloppy many corporate executives are.
They can literally afford to be.
I’m still smiling about Blanche starting out asking if Cohen posted a message calling him a shit. “Sounds like something I’d say” 
This might ruin your Sunday…
I can’t remember when I’ve been more disturbed by a criminal trial than I have been by the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. The prosecutors are painting a vivid picture of Trump as a vile and dishonest person, and the daily pilgrimages of Republican politicians to the Manhattan courthouse, in spite of horrific testimony against Trump, demonstrates that the party has a broken soul.
At the same time, the underlying legal theory supporting the prosecution’s case remains dubious. The facts may be clear, but the law is anything but — and that could very well mean that the jury convicts Trump before the election, an appeals court reverses the conviction after the election, and millions of Americans, many of them non-MAGA, face yet another crisis of confidence in American institutions.
…And we can now place Daniels’s testimony in the larger context of what we know about Trump. A jury found him legally liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll. Now we’ve heard additional sworn testimony that Trump is not only unfaithful but fundamentally predatory.
Against that backdrop, it is reprehensible that Republican politicians are marching down to Manhattan — sometimes identically dressed in Trump-inspired blue suits and red ties — to stand by their man. It’s dreadful that so many Christians still believe he’s the God-appointed savior of America.
…But dreadful isn’t a synonym for criminal, and nothing about the terrible facts of the case has eased my legal concerns. From the beginning, it has been obvious that the facts of the case are damning, but the law is cloudy. The reason is simple: To secure a felony conviction, the prosecutor has to prove that Trump falsified business records with an “intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
But what is the other crime? Here is where the case gets shaky…
I’ve probably quoted as much as I dare. Very depressing…
He ends with:
There are smart lawyers who disagree with me, who think the prosecution is standing on solid legal ground. I truly hope they’re right. But I’m worried enough to be deeply perturbed. A terrible man is in the cross hairs of American justice, but immorality alone doesn’t make him a criminal.
Didn’t it sound like, on one of Cohen’s recordings, that when the subject of paying Stormy was raised, trump initially suggested cash, and Cohen nixed it?
However, he really is (allegedly) a criminal, and being a politician doesn’t (shouldn’t) make him immune from prosecution.
I hope this is just the usual NYT bending over (backwards - get your minds out of the gutter) for the wealthy and connected.
Eh, I don’t think it should.
His concern arises because this is a novel prosecution. Not unlawful, just new.
And why is it untested? Simply because we don’t have a prior instance of a person being convicted of falsifying business records to cover up election fraud.
Any why is that? Probably because Trump is uniquely criminal in this regard. Politicians, for all the talk of how dishonest and greedy they are, do actually follow these sorts of laws. Payoffs and hush money aren’t business as usual.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that New York has gone completely rogue in its effort to convict. It is not remotely new for a person to be found to have violated these laws (and in fact in one of the cases listed below the conviction for falsifying records was upheld even though the defendant was acquitted of the insurance fraud that served as the underlying crime).
Only if you’ve not been paying attention. People have been making this point since the charges were filed. And the point is these are all reasons the charges may never see a jury, but now we are about a week from jury deliberations they’re kind of a moot point. That is a fairly esoteric legal point and unlikely to convince a jury, especially given the defense strategy (or arguably lack of strategy). I do think of the defense had focused on this point (the secondary crime of election interference and the relative lack of evidence for it) they would have stood a reasonable chance but they’ve totally failed to do that.
It will undoubtedly come up in the (totally inevitable) appeal. But even there how much grounds for appeal is it? The jury making the wrong decision isn’t grounds for appeal, AFAIK to appeal you need to show something was hidden from them or some other procedurally incorrect thing occured.
That was an opinion piece the conservative NYT columnist David French. I don’t dismiss his writings. But I don’t share the same pearls he clutches.
To be clear, an untested legal theory is not the same thing as a weak or specious theory. If Trump is convicted, his conviction could well survive on appeal. The alternative, however, is dreadful. Imagine a scenario in which Trump is convicted at the trial, Biden condemns him as a felon, and the Biden campaign runs ads mocking him as a convict. If Biden wins a narrow victory but then an appeals court tosses out the conviction, this case could well undermine faith in our democracy and the rule of law.
I don’t consider that scenario dreadful, certainly not more dreadful that an out of control Supreme court putting an artificial halt to the judicial process and handing an election over to George W Bush, who would go on to embroil the country in a 2 trillion dollar pointless war in Iraq. Props to David French for actually specifying a problematic scenario though.
I also agree that discussion of the underlying legal theory and the prosecution’s link to alleged federal crimes, is a good topic for this thread.
Keep in mind, we’re still in the prosecution phase of the trial. The defense hasn’t accomplished much in their cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, but they’re still waiting their turn to actually make their case, including (potentially) calling their own witnesses.
I think it likely that they still won’t make much of a case, just because there isn’t much of a case to be made. But it’s premature to say for sure.
True, but IMO (and for the umpteenth time IANAL) the time to succeed with that strategy was on cross: rather than denying everything and hurranging every witness, asking each one “did you hear Trump explicitly say he was doing this falsifying to effect the election?”, and then focusing in in Cohen when he (alone) said yes and challenging his credibility.
court has started today with house keeping.
Judge Juan Merchan has returned to the bench this morning.
“Good morning Mr. Trump,” he said.
“As you know there were a couple of issues that came up over the weekend and I wanted to address them before the jury got here,” Merchan said.
Judge Juan Merchan says he expects closing arguments will be next Tuesday.
“It’s become apparent that we’re not going to be able to sum up tomorrow,” he says.
“It was either have a long break now or have a long break then, and unfortunately, the calendar is what it is,” Merchan says.
Lawyers for both sides are beginning today’s court proceedings by debating about an email from Robert Costello’s associate to Michael Cohen after Cohen’s first meeting with Costello.
Prosecutors are objecting to introducing it into evidence.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche says the email that speaks positively about Cohen’s first meeting with Costello impeaches Cohen’s testimony that he didn’t like Costello after their first meeting and didn’t want to retain him.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger says “this doesn’t disclose what’s in Michael Cohen’s mind” because it’s an opinion from Jeffrey Citron about that initial meeting, not Cohen.
More context: Costello once advised Cohen, but Cohen never formally retained him. The jury in this case has already seen emails from Costello offering to serve as a backchannel to Trump after Cohen’s home and office were searched by the FBI.
Judge Juan Merchan says he will not allow the email into evidence because it doesn’t say anything about Michael Cohen’s state of mind.
Judge Juan Merchan said that allowing a Federal Election Commission (FEC) expert to testify on the additional subjects that Donald Trump’s lawyers are seeking would lead to a “battle of the experts,” which would “only confuse and not assist” the jury.
“The jury would hear legal instructions from three different people. As Mr. Bove eluded to there is no question this would result in a battle of the experts and would only serve to confuse and not assist he jury,” the judge said.
Merchan also cited Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan’s ruling barring this same expert from testifying to similar topics at the Sam Bankman-Fried trial.
“I direct you back to page three of my decision,” Merchan said, reiterating that Brad Smith could testify as to what the FEC is, its purpose, background, what laws if any FEC is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms that relate to this case, including contribution and expenditure.
Donald Trump briefly leaned forward and shook his head as Judge Juan Merchan read his ruling on the expert witness. Trump’s hands were crossed and he looked upset.
As defense attorney Emil Bove argued his points, Trump looked up to watch Bove.
Trump attorney Emil Bove said he’d like to elicit from the expert witness a definition “for the purpose of influencing the election,” as it pertains to several campaign finance terms like “expenditure.”
Judge Juan Merchan’s ruling presently does not allow them to touch on a definition of influencing the election if the expert testifies.
Former President Donald Trump’s defense team has still not made a final decision over whether to call Robert Costello to testify once the prosecution rests its case, two people familiar with the matter told CNN.
After Costello testified before the House Judiciary Committee last week and disputed Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen’s testimony, it became an open conversation about whether to call him. But there has been a divide inside Trump’s orbit over whether it would be worth doing so, given it could also further prolong the trial.
Costello once advised Cohen, but Cohen never formally retained him. The jury in this case has seen emails from Costello offering to serve as a backchannel to Trump after Cohen’s home and office were searched by the FBI. On April 21, Costello wrote to 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.
Costello later told Cohen to sleep well given he had “friends in high places.”
Sources told CNN’s Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes last week a decision would likely not be made until Cohen’s testimony wraps.
Costello testified before the grand jury before Trump was ultimately indicted in New York.
“You’ve known for months what my position would be” based on his pretrial rulings on this issue months ago, Judge Juan Merchan told Donald Trump’s attorneys.
Trump attorney Emil Bove jumped to interrupt him, and Merchan said smiling “just relax.”
Bove crossed his hands across his chest apologetically and smiled back at the judge as Merchan continued speaking.
“I’m going to be consistent with my earlier rulings,” Merchan said.
Merchan now tells Bove, "make me an offer of proof as to what he would say in response and I’ll be in a better position to determine if it’s an appropriate response or not. "
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said, “As the court has just said the judge will and should charge on appropriate legal definitions. The defense is not entitled to have an expert front-end that process.”
now the attorneys have been called to the bench.
Judge Juan Merchan says the court will take a 10-minute break and start at 9:30 a.m. ET.
Trump is leaving the courtroom.
Judge Juan Merchan is back on the bench and court is in session.
and we are off…
I do wonder what the motivation for the defense is here. Is this just following Trump’s orders, playing to the MAGA faithful on Fox News (a really bad strategy, again: Worst client ever). Or does asking the judge, and having him say no, at this point in this trial make it more appeal-able, I can’t imagine that would be the case but IANAL.
Attorney Todd Blanche starts off his questions this morning and asks Michael Cohen, “Since that time until right now how many reporters have you talked to about what happened last week?”
Cohen says, “I didn’t speak to reporters about what happened last week.”
Blanche follows up. Cohen says, “I’ve spoken to reporters who just called to say, ‘hello,’ to see how I’m doing, to check in, but I did not talk about this case.”
Blanche pushes the issue further, asking Cohen to confirm the reporters “just greeted you and asked how you’re doing, didn’t ask at all about this case?”
“Correct,” Cohen says.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked Michael Cohen how many times he’s met with prosecutors this year.
Cohen puts the number at more than a dozen, most recently last weekend before he took the stand.
When pressed by Blanche, Cohen said it was closer to 20 times.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche is focusing now focusing on October 2016.
“You agree with me that you had a lot going on both in your personal life and with President Trump in those first few weeks of October,” Blanche asks.
“Yes, sir,” Cohen said.
Cohen also agreed that he was dealing with a potential restructuring of his taxi medallion business, a sale of an investment with his brother, working on the national diversity coalition for Trump, and obtaining an endorsement from the Martin Luther King Jr. family.
cohen also helping tiffany trump with potential extortion issue over photographs.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche and Michael Cohen are getting into a back-and-forth exchange about a business opportunity Cohen was working on in October 2016, which Blanche says involves taxi medallions but Cohen says is related to a mortgage in Florida.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now turning to the litigation involving David Pecker, ex-publisher of the National Enquirer, and iPayments.
The litigation was filed September 30, 2016.
Cohen said he doesn’t recall the specifics of the litigation.
Cohen said he worked to help try to settle the litigation because he was friends with everyone.
“You were also exploring getting a job at iPayments,” Blanche asked.
“It was floated. Yes, sir,” Cohen said.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche cites October 2016, when Michael Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels’ lawyer.
“You talked multiple times that day with folks associated with Dr King’s statement and the fact that she was now going to be supporting President Trump,” Blanche asks.
Michael Cohen made two calls to Donald Trump the morning he made the payment to Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, around 8:30 a.m. ET.
The first call was at 8:26 a.m. ET and lasted three minutes and one second.
The second call was at 8:34 a.m. ET and lasted one minute and 28 seconds.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now asking Michael Cohen of his recollection of what the former president was up to on October 26.
Cohen said he doesn’t remember.
“Do you remember that morning… that Trump was going to sit down and do an interview with ABC right after 9 a.m. ET. Does it ring a bell?” Blanche asked.
“No sir,” Cohen said.
Blanche tried to use a document to support this, but it was sustained and not allowed.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche questions Michael Cohen if he still maintains that he only spoke to Trump on the phone on October 26 about the Stormy Daniels issue.
Cohen says yes, “because it was important to me.”
Attorney Todd Blanche also asked if the “Access Hollywood” tape fallout was still an issue and if Trump was speaking to the media that Michael Cohen might have spoken with Trump about that.
“My recollection is that I was speaking to him about Stormy Daniels because that is what he tasked me to take care of and that’s what I’ve been working on,” Cohen replied.
rc: it has come out that cohen paid the red finch people in cash in a paper bag. blanche is now going for stating that cohen stole from the trump org. with all the questioning about the red finch payment.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche is walking Michael Cohen through the calculation to reach the $420,000 he said he was paid in 2017. Cohen testified earlier in the trial that he worked on the payment with former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg.
"You were shorted on 100,000 on your bonus that year, " Blanche asked.
“That’s correct,” Cohen said, confirming he normally got $150,000 as an annual bonus around the holidays.
“So the $50,000 that you got back from Red Finch… you only paid the Red Finch owner $20,000, right?” Blanche asks. “Yes sir,” Cohen says.
Blanche is now walking Cohen through how he paid the $20,000 to the Red Finch owner in cash. Cohen confirmed he withdrew the money over a couple days. “I just didn’t want to take out $20,000” at once, Cohen says.
“I don’t recall if it was exactly $20,000,” Cohen added to clarify.
Cohen said that Red Finch wanted the full payment of $50,000, but they accepted the money they received.
“So, you stole from the Trump organization,” Blanche asked, noting Cohen was reimbursed $100,000.
“Yes sir,” Cohen, said in response to Blanche.
"You didn’t just steal the 30,000, Because it was grossed up, it was 60,000, " Blanche asked. "Yes, sir, " Cohen said.
Cohen agreed that he has told multiple prosecutors with the DA’s office about it.
“Did you ever have to plead guilty to larceny,” Blanche asked.
“No, sir,” Cohen said.