It’s one of the few bits of potentially verifiable examples where it was discussed. Almost certainly it was discussed elsewhere but Trump famously hates leaving paper trails.
But the idea that the whole case hinges on this one piece of evidence is guesswork on the part of news organizations who need to keep eyeballs engaged. At the end of the day, the jury itself decides what is sufficient or not to make the prosecution’s case. The lawyers on both sides can only hope to provide or prevent as much evidence as possible to bolster their case.
For anybody who hasn’t heard the infamous audio recording, surreptitiously made by Cohen, and including Cohen and Trump discussing the payment(s), I think it’s worth the 2m47s:
Not at all. Cohen testified that he kept in regular contact with Trump, and updated him immediately whenever he did something (because he wanted to get credit).
Why did this one call become a point of emphasis?
Because it was the one time that the defense had something to challenge Cohen on. They were able to tie one instance of a phone call to a text message conversation about something else.
And so they harped on it.
I believe the term is “nothingburger”. It hardly invalidates the DA’s case, or even really shows that Cohen’s testimony isn’t credible.
I’ve got it on good authority, Alina Habba, that Merchan should have dismissed the case after the prosecution and defense rested on the grounds that the prosecution didn’t prove their case. As a lawyer, I think it’s safe to say she knows more about these things than either one of us.
I wouldn’t say that. Both this and the “grossing up” testimony aren’t nothingburgers. They are legitimate ways the defense has scored points and taken a bit of credibility off cohen as a witness. But on the other hand they aren’t some kind of bombshell that will surely get Trump off. Especially as I think they have been loss somewhat in the barrage of defense claims, particularly as they were followed by the Costello debacle.
Though we still have summation to come, maybe the defense will dial it back, just focus on the election interference bit of the case and just emphasize how Cohen’s credibility is fairly important to proving that, and then frame these things in that context. At which point they do become more relevant IMO
The fact that Cohen was texting with Schiller about some annoying kid does not in any way mean that Cohen couldn’t, or didn’t, also speak with Trump about the payoff. There’s simply no reason to infer that (unless you are convinced that Cohen can’t talk about more than one thing on a phone call, or that 90 seconds was too short to have the discussion; neither are realistic).
And the “grossing up” calculation is similarly weak. Cohen wasn’t caught in a lie : when asked if he kept some of the money that he said was a fee for a client, he freely admitted to it.
Does it make him look greedy or sleazy? Yeah, but that was already the case. The DA isn’t claiming that he’s an honest broker; instead, they are saying that his explanation of what transpired best fits the known facts of the case.
So I don’t really see how the defense managed to discredit his story.
I was thinking the same thing only television. With today’s 42-minute “hour” dramas, 90 seconds is 3.5% of everything you want to accomplish in that episode.
I assume you do not watch much broadcast TV. There were a couple of commercials I actually timed, and they were over 4 minutes long. For a single, continuous ad.
Long ads are common for certain categories, particularly prescription drugs, Medicare supplemental insurance, and direct-response advertising (i.e., the companies selling gadgets).
But, for most categories, the 15-second ad is very common now, and has been for years.
This is true; my earlier post wasn’t well-worded. For most categories, advertising on network TV broadcasts, the vast majority of ads are either :15s or :30s. (My attempts to google which of those two is the most common is yielding conflicting information.)
