Wasn’t it pretty well established that Trump kept pushing back on paying for the first catch and kill stories? “I don’t want to get stiffed again!” seems like a reasonable reaction to that. That’s why Cohen paid the third time.
Apropos of nothing … CNN can’t get their audio game together.
It’s bad.
per cnn:
Judge Juan Merchan said he’d give a curative instruction as to defense attorney Todd Blanche’s remarks about sending Trump to prison.
During his closing arguments, Blanche talked about Cohen’s credibility and told the jury: “Then he came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly. You cannot send someone to prison you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen.”
Merchan said Blanche’s comment was “outrageous.”
“You know that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate. It simply not allowed. Period. It’s hard for me to imagine that was accidental in any way,” the judge said, referencing Blanche’s experienced career as a prosecutor and a defense attorney.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass had raised the issue and asked for curative instruction for the “ridiculous comment.”
“That was a blatant and wholly inappropriate” effort to get sympathy for Trump, Steinglass told Merchan.
Steinglass also said Merchan should reconsider a curative instruction about retainer agreements because he said Blanche “doubled down that it’s perfectly plausibly to have no retainer agreement when that is not the law in New York State.” This was debated at the charge conference last week and Merchan said he’d look into the law.
Merchan did not make any comments about a potential curative instruction on the retainer issue.
It would be so awesome if the prosecution could present their summation in an hour or less, implying “We just listened to the defense blather on to no effect, this is how it was, done and done.” I think the jury would really appreciate a concise argument.
“Mr. Blanche, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent summation were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this courtroom is now dumber for having listened to it. I hope the jury gives your argument little credence, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
The list of 10 items seems pretty reasonable, actually. Probably, he should have just left it at that and gained the favor of the jury by not taking hours and hours.
or if he gave his summation according to that list.
See I think it’s a clever play on GOAT. “The gloat” as a nickname describes Cohen pretty well even if he’s not the greatest of all time. It would’ve gotten a smirk out of me, which is exactly what Blanche was going for. End on something clever that will stick in my mind and maybe smooth over some of the irritating shit I had to sit through.
So, reading that summation, I think the lawyer did the best job they could with the evidence that they had to work with.
But I also noticed what seemed like several significant contradictions in their version of events. I wonder how much that will influence the jury, or if they’ll even notice the problems. I’m hoping the prosecution points these out.
Probably the biggest one is about Cohen and money. They make a point that Cohen wouldn’t have worked for Trump without getting paid, hence there must have been a retainer agreement, but then expect the jury to believe that the very same Cohen would drop $130K for Trump, without asking for reimbursement, or even telling Trump about it to curry favor. As I see it, Cohen is either money-motivated or not, but they want us to believe he’s both.
Yeah, it was a clever move. Of course, if I were there, and he said this while standing next to Trump, I’d have to question his judging standards. “Oh, look, the Russian judge has given Trump a 0 out of 10 in the lying category!”
per cnn:
Judge Juan Merchan is back on the bench and court is in session.
Merchan begins by asking for prosecutors. He asked for their proposed curative instruction about discussing sending Trump to prison.
per msnbc, there was a bit of back and forth on the prison issue.
per cnn:
Judge Juan Merchan and attorneys are discussing the issue of a curative instruction as to defense attorney Todd Blanche’s remarks about sending Trump to prison.
During his closing arguments, Blanche talked about Michael Cohen’s credibility and told the jury: “Then he came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly. You cannot send someone to prison you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen.”
Prosecutors say they’ve drafted a curative instruction on the prison comment and the retainer agreement issue
Trump and his attorneys Emil Bove and Blanche reviewed the paper before Blanche speaks.
Blanche says they have no objection to the language of the curative instruction regarding the prison comment but says they don’t believe he misstated the law as to retainer agreements in his closing argument.
Merchan says he will give the curative instruction on Blanche’s prison comment as written. He says he will not give the instruction on the retainer agreement, saying while he understands prosecutors’ frustration he thinks an instruction from the bench to the jury “would call more attention to it than it’s worth.”
per msnbc: the judge is giving the prison instruction to the jury now.
and the prosecution begins.
A fact seems to be missing, or buried under so much detail, in this thread.
Cohen didn’t invoice the Trump Org or the Trump Campaign for “Legal Services.” He sent a copy of his HELOC bank statement for expense reimbursement of $130,035, and penciled in the Red Finch $50,000, for a total of $180,035.
Trump’s accountant could have paid $180,000 expense reimbursement plus a $60,000 “additional bonus”, for $240,000. Cohen would then have filed his taxes showing $240,000 minus $180,000 for net income of $60,000.
Instead, Trump’s accountant “grossed up” the $180,000, doubling it to account for the 50% tax bracket that Cohen would be paying if the payments were “legal services” rather than “reimbursements.” Plus the $60,000 “additional bonus.” Under this scenario, Cohen gets an extra $180,000 but adds approx $180,000 to his tax burden, for a net income of $60,000.
Either way, Cohen’s net income is $60,000. (Plus the money that he never actually paid to Red Finch, but it doesn’t seem Trump Org was aware of this).
My point is, it was Trump Org’s decision to pay an extra $180,000 change their ledgers (and Cohen’s W-2 or 1099 or whatever) in such a way that Cohen’s net income is $60,000. Calling it “legal services” and adding $180,000 was not for Cohen’s benefit. Trump Org, notoriously stingy and notoriously micromanaged by The Donald Himself, paid an extra $180,000 to the IRS via Cohen to disguise the reimbursement as a legal service.
Did I get that right?
Yeah, I think that’s the most damning thing for them. If this was just a retainer for legal services, what was the point of that weird-ass calculation? Why not just $X/month x 12 months?
per cnn:
Before prosecution began its closing arguments, the attorneys on both sides and the judge discussed Trump attorney’s Todd Blanche’s comments about Michael Cohen’s credibility during his closing argument.
CNN’s Paula Reid explained why the comment was a “third rail.”
What Blanche said about Cohen: “Then he came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly. You cannot send someone to prison you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen.”
Why it’s controversial: “The jury is not going to sentence the defendant if he is convicted. And the judge suggested that this was part of an effort to elicit sympathy, potentially, for the defendant. So that’s why this is such an issue. They should not be bringing this up because this is not the jury’s job right now to decide whether or not someone goes to prison,” Reid explained.
“Their job is to look at the facts and the law and decide whether this is an acquittal or if this is a conviction. That’s their task, and it has nothing to do with sentencing. And that’s why prosecutors objected and the judge agreed,” she added.
Judge Juan Merchan instructs the jury about the defense’s closing arguments.
“In the defense summation, Mr. (Todd) Blanche asked in substance that you not send the defendant to prison. That comment was improper and you must disregard it.
In your deliberations, you may not discuss, consider or even speculate as to matters related to sentence or punishment.”
“In his opening, Mr. Colangelo told you that this case, at its core, is about a conspiracy and a cover up,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says, recalling prosecutor Matthew Colangelo’s opening statement.
In his closing argument, Steinglass says the conspiracy was “to corrupt the 2016 election” and the cover up was “an effort hide the conspiracy to falsify business records to disguise.”
“We asked you to remember to tune out the noise and to ignore the sideshows,” Steinglass tells the jury. “And if you’ve done that … you will see the people have presented powerful evidence of the defendant’s guilt.”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass focuses on Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s accusation that evidence may have been manipulated, saying they only have records for two of Michael Cohen’s 11 phones.
He says prosecutors don’t have all the phone data for the parties involved – so the jury should note that the absence of a particular phone record doesn’t prove that a call did not happen.
“Some of the conversation in this case took place in person so there wouldn’t be a phone call or record. The fact that there isn’t a record of a particular phone call does not mean a particular conversation did not take place,” he said.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says “it’s just not reality” that Stormy Daniels was extorting Donald Trump.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass calls David Pecker’s testimony “utterly damning.”
“Mr. Pecker has absolutely no reason to lie here, he still considers Mr. Trump a friend and mentor and yet his testimony was utterly devastating,” Steinglass says.
Steinglass says that Pecker’s testimony “eliminates the whole notion that this was politics as usual” and that you don’t need Michael Cohen’s testimony to prove there was a conspiracy.
“To be sure” some witnesses want to see Donald Trump convicted, says prosecutor Joshua Steinglass. “They’ve been attacked by the defendant on social media.”
The prosecutor acknowledges that Stormy Daniels is one of them.
"They’ve shamed her. They’ve tried to suggest her story has changed over the years. It has not, at least not in any way that’s significant.
“To be sure, there were parts of her testimony that were cringeworthy,” Steinglass says.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is moving onto Michael Cohen and notes the fact that he has an interest in this case.
“Michael Cohen is understandably angry, that to date, he’s the one one who’s paid the price for his role in this conspiracy,” Steinglass says.
“Anyone in Cohen’s shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable,” Steinglass says.
Cohen did Trump’s bidding for years, “and when it went bad the defendant cut him loose, dropped him like a hot potato and tweeted out to he world that Mr. Cohen was as scumbag,” Steinglass says.
Steinglass is not referring to Trump by name, just as the defendant.
Donald Trump wouldn’t pay $130,000 – twice that after it was grossed up for taxes – just because he took a photo with someone on a golf course, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass tells the jury.
Remember: The jury was shown a photo on May 7 of Trump wearing a golf shirt alongside Stormy Daniels.
She testified that she met Trump in 2006 at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. “It was a very brief encounter,” she said.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said Donald Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche sounded like “he admitted” that at least as early as 2017, former President Donald Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels’ payments.
“Remember, 2017 is when the checks were still rolling in every month. Of course the defendant knew much earlier than 2017,” he said.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now addressing Michael Cohen’s admission of stealing from Trump by overcharging the Trump Organization for the tech services.
The prosecutor says Cohen didn’t tell Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg it was only $20,000 he should’ve been reimbursed rather than the $50,000 he claimed.
Steinglass adds: “And he should have, and that’s stealing, we agree.”
“It’s true he was never charged with that. He’s also the one who brought it to everyone’s attention,” Steinglass says.
Well it’s damning for Trump Org, the defense here is really going to hope the jury believes that this all happened without Trump having a clue.
ohhh, we are going to the 90 second conversation. the prosecution is demonstrating how long that is.
oooh, he has set a timer to demonstrate call timing.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has turned to the October 24 call and is acting out a fake conversation between Michael Cohen, Trump and his former bodyguard Keith Schiller.
Steinglass says the defense has tried to claim it is the “big lie.”
“Hey Keith, how’s it going? It seems like this prankster might be a 14-year-old kid,” Steinglass starts the fake conversation.
Steinglass uses his hand with his thumb and pinky finger extended as a fake phone as he does this.
in other parts of the summation, per cnn:
Joshua Steinglass calls out Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche on what he said was an inconsistency in the defense argument about Michael Cohen.
“You can call him a thief or say it wasn’t a reimbursement but not both,” he says.
“I don’t know if anybody caught this,” he tells the jury.
“Blanche said (Cohen) stole $60,000 because it was grossed up. So that means the defendant is trying to have it both ways, right. They’re denying the $420,000 was a reimbursement at all. Claiming payment for legal services rendered in 2016. But if that’s true, then there was no theft. He’s getting paid for legal services in 2017. They can call him a thief and claim this wasn’t really reimbursement, but not both.”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass notes that it’s true Michael Cohen has made money off of Trump.
“I suspect he will continue to do that regardless of the outcome of this trial,” he says.
Steinglass says Cohen has endured the consequences for his actions and is the only one to do so in this scheme.
“I’m not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen. He made his bed, but you can hardly blame him for making money on the one thing he has left which is his knowledge of the Trump phenomenon,” he says.
Steinglass also tried to explain Cohen’s lies to the judge when he was sentenced.
“He believes the Trump Justice Department did him dirty, whether that’s true or not, he was very forthright about the conduct he committed and he accepted responsibility for the conduct,” he said.
The prosecutor is moving to the lies to Congress, which he notes with a note of incredulity.
“What Michael Cohen lied about was the number of dealings the defendant had with Russia,” Joshua Steinglass says.
He called it “rich” and “chutzpah” for Donald Trump to now claim the lies Cohen told to Congress to benefit Trump are now a reason to discredit Cohen.
Yes, exactly. Another thing - I know the jury is not supposed to draw any inferences about Trump’s lack of testimony… but when the defense closing directly claims that Trump " unequivocally and repeatedly denied" that any encounter with Daniels occurred…
I think some on the jury may wonder why Trump did not bother to state that under oath. Some of them may even be vaguely aware that Trump has been shown to lie repeatedly about many things. A couple may even be aware of the lies that Trump and his surrogates say in the press, and then don’t say anything remotely like that when under oath.
It did seem fairly Trumpian:
“Pick one of these mutually exclusive excuses you like the best and go with that one (just ignore the rest, mkay?)”
per cnn:
Joshua Steinglass says that the defense is trying to have it both ways, “telling you (Michael) Cohen would say anything to get the defendant convicted. And then pointing out that his testimony, if you accept it, isn’t enough.”
The prosecutor argues it’s actually neither, suggesting that if Cohen was lying he could have gone much further in tying Donald Trump to alleged illegality.
But Steinglass says Cohen didn’t offer more because “he’s limited by what actually happened and he’s not going to tell you anything beyond that.”
He adds:
"Michael Cohen was really more of a defendant’s fixer than his lawyer. He had a legal title but he wasn’t in the Trump Organization legal department. He didn’t answer to the general counsel, he answered to the defendant directly.
“He got the jobs no one else wanted. The jobs that the defendant wanted to keep quiet.”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is describing how Michael Cohen was more of Trump’s “fixer than his lawyer.”
“He had a legal title, but he wasn’t in the Trump Organization legal department. He didn’t answer to the general counsel, he answered to the defendant directly,” Steinglass says. "He got the jobs no one else wanted. The jobs that the defendant wanted to keep quiet.
“We didn’t choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn’t pick him up at the witness store,” Steinglass adds. “The defendant chose Michael Cohen as his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on his behalf.”
Steinglass tells the jury that Trump chose Cohen “for the same qualities” that Trump’s attorneys “now urge you to reject his testimony because of it.”
Loyalty for Donald Trump was “not a two-way street,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says.
“Look what the defendant did to David Pecker,” he says, referring to the publisher of the “National Enquirer.”
“Mr.Pecker saw Mr. Trump as a mentor. Mr. Trump saw him as a useful tool.”
Steinglass continued:
"He corrupted those around him and he got them to lie and cover it up. Stay on message or your out.”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is arguing that there’s plenty of evidence to corroborate Michael Cohen’s story.
“In this case, there’s literally a mountain of evidence of corroborating testimony that tends to connect the defendant to this crime, from Pecker to Hicks to the defendant’s own employees,” Steinglass says, referring to former CEO of American Media Inc. David Pecker and Trump’s former aide Hope Hicks.
“It’s difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration than this one,” he adds.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says the defense wants to make this case about Michael Cohen.
“It isn’t. That’s a deflection,” Steinglass tells the jury.
“This case is not about Michael Cohen. It’s about Mr. Trump and whether he should be held accountable for making false business entries in his own business records. Whether he and his staff did that to cover up election interference,” Steinglass says.
The prosecutor says Cohen’s “significance in this case is that he provides context and color to the documents, the phone records.”
“He’s like a tour guide through the physical evidence, but those documents don’t lie and they don’t forget,” Steinglass said.
The August 2015 Trump Tower meeting with David Pecker, Donald Trump and Michael Cohen is the “prism” through which the jury should look at this case, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says.
Steinglass now appears to be turning to tell the prosecutors’ story chronologically as he returns to the Trump Tower meeting and what Pecker agreed to do for Trump.
In a nod to the jury instructions, Steinglass says Pecker’s commitment to run certain stories for the benefit of Trump’s campaign “is not a normal legitimate press function.”
More on this: At the charging conference, the parties debated over language for a definition of the phrase “normal legitimate press function” to be read to the jury in Judge Juan Merchan’s instructions on the law.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now talking about American Media Inc.'s agreement with Trump to purchase stories on his behalf.
“Once AMI purchased stories on the candidate’s behalf, those purchases became unlawful campaign contributions,” Steinglass says.
Shades of “A Few Good Men.”
I like it.