‘Knees Chopped Out’: Stormy Time for Michael Cohen on Cross Examination
“He’s the only person testifying to direct involvement by Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels payments, but according to suddenly now, Michael Cohen’s refreshed memory, he now says, ‘Oh, it was a call about this 14-year-old making prank phone calls to me, but also about the moving ahead on Stormy Daniels.'”
President Donald Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, highlighted the many times Cohen has lied and his guilty plea to federal charges in 2018.
The most interesting part, though, is that Blanche might have caught Michael Cohen committing perjury during his testimony on May 13.
On Tuesday, Cohen testified that he tried to contact Trump through bodyguard Keith Schiller on October 24, 2016, to talk about “the Stormy Daniels matter and the resolution of it.”
Cohen claimed that during the phone call, he proceeded with Daniels’ $130,000 payment.
Blanche asked Cohen about his recollections of phone calls. It shocked him that Cohen could not remember specifics about phone calls from a year ago but remembers every detail of phone calls with Trump in 2016.
(I don’t have today’s transcript yet. I need to use snippets from live blogs.)
I wonder if Blanche foreshadowed his angles by questioning about remembering phone calls.
Today, Blanche asked Cohen about the phone call. Cohen said he told Trump the payment went to Daniels (emphasis mine):
Cohen testified as a prosecution witness that he called Trump’s bodyguard Keith Schiller on Oct. 24, 2016, days before the Daniels payment was transferred, to tell him a deal with Daniels’s lawyer had been reached.
But Blanche confronted Cohen with text messages that were not shown by prosecutors on direct-examination showing that in that same several-minute time frame, Cohen was talking to Schiller about a 14-year-old who had been harassing him with prank phone calls.
His call with Schiller was less than two minutes, according to cellphone records, and Blanche suggested there was no way he had time to speak about both when he was clearly focused on telling the Trump security adviser about the person harassing him.
“That is a lie you did not talk to President Trump that night …” Blanche said, his voice booming through the courtroom.
“I’m not sure that’s accurate,” Cohen said.
Another possible point of perjury. Cohen testified Tuesday that a Oct. 24 phone call was to speak to Trump. However, Branche revealed that, in a Cohen text to Keith Schiller, Donald Trump's former bodyguard, Cohen asked Schiller about harassing calls from an alleged 14-year-old…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 16, 2024
It does not look good for Cohen.
Even Trump’s critics admitted that Blanche’s cross-examination of Cohen harmed the prosecution’s case.
CNN legal analyst: "I don't think I've never seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically as what just happened with Michael Cohen." pic.twitter.com/NcghETrUIJ
— MAGA War Room (@MAGAIncWarRoom) May 16, 2024
CNN’s Anderson Cooper spoke about the exchange over the 2016 phone call (emphasis mine):
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: I got to say there was a lot of boring moments early on. There was a lot of kind of meandering cross-examination or seemingly meandering cross-examination by Todd Blanche, but the last 20 minutes of court today right before the lunch break, it was incredible. I mean, it was Elie Honig on my program last night had talked about on cross-examination lawyers want to kind of put the witness and build a box around the witness and then slamming shut that’s what Todd Blanche did to Michael Cohen.
I mean, the story that Todd Blanche just methodically went through the sequence of events of this phone conversation that allegedly, that Michael Cohen had testified to previously that he had had this consequential phone conversation with Donald Trump, who was a 90 second phone conversation. I believe it was October 24th was the date testified to in around 8:00 p.m. or so at night but Todd Blanche on his cross-examination today when kind of looked at the transcripts of text messages that Michael Cohen had received and sent before that time frame and there had been this series, I guess a crank calls that Michael Cohen had received. It turned out to be from some 14-year-old. There was an exchange of messages between the alleged 14-year-old and Michael Cohen. And then Michael Cohen texted Keith Schiller, like 7:50 something or 7:48 p.m. saying, “Hey, some dope has been harassing me. I got the person’s phone number or who can I talk to?” Keith Schiller texting back, saying call me and Michael Cohen calls Keith Schiller. This is the conversation that previously Michael Cohen had said he was calling speak to Donald Trump to tell him that he was going ahead with the Stormy Daniels arrangement and then Trump approved it, which was crucial to Michael Cohen’s whole raison d’etre for Michael Cohen being on the stand. He’s the only person testifying to direct involvement by Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels payments, but according to suddenly now, Michael Cohen’s refreshed memory, he now says, “Oh, it was a call about this 14-year-old making prank phone calls to me, but also about the moving ahead on Stormy Daniels.”
Todd Blanche was incredulous. His voice cracking, his voice raising up, moving around the courtroom speaking, saying the jury doesn’t want to hear for him guessing, it wants to hear facts.
It was an extraordinary cross-examination by Todd Blanche and Michael Cohen’s throughout the day, Michael Cohen, when cornered, he found himself in a corner, he does have a pattern of suddenly not understanding the questions being asked or seemingly kind of, I mean, one could say buying time to try to figure out what, how he wants to answer. But he definitely suddenly starts to have Todd Blanche repeat questions since “I don’t quite understand what you mean, I’m confused by the question.” But this time, Michael Cohen was cornered in what appeared here to be a lie, I think to many in the room. And had to adjust, suddenly, his memory that he had just testified to on Tuesday.
If jurors don’t believe Michael Cohen, how significant that might be — he was I mean, it is hard to — I wonder how prosecutors are going to redirect on this because Todd Blanche also pointed out, got Michael Cohen to admit that he had not seen these text messages in the prep by prosecutors, so he had apparently had no memory of those text messages, and the implication is that he concocted, you know, he was shown that there was a phone call to Keith Schiller at this time by prosecutors in the prep and the implications, certainly by Todd Blanche, is that he concocted this story of what that 90 second phone call was, not realizing that there were text messages right ahead that directly related and right after for the directly related.
Anderson Cooper was left stunned by Trump's attorney's cross examination of Michael Cohen
"It was incredible…lawyers want to build a box around the witness & slam it shut–that's what Todd Blanche did to Cohen…it was an extraordinary cross…Cohen was cornered in…a lie" pic.twitter.com/WKnKCs8TkU
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) May 16, 2024
MSNBC’s Ari Melber also thinks the jury will have a hard time believing Cohen due to his past lies:
ARI MELBER: I think the punches are building cumulatively. I think the punches are building cumulatively. I think Tuesday there were bruises and today there is blood. They’re not done and this is a back-and-forth process. I was listening to your reporting, following along like everyone. I’m going in the courtroom next. I was speaking to Lawrence O’Donnell who spoke to MSNBC today as well.
The collective view is these are moments the jury will remember, and they are instilling or adding possible doubts about Michael Cohen’s long-term credibility.
As I think everyone knows who has followed the trial, the question isn’t has he changed his mind and retracted things? Both sides agree on that. That’s not in doubt. The question is, “Does this guy still lie?” If he lies about anything, little, medium or large, can you trust him?
The standard is not, okay, do we have to be convinced that he lies about everything? The standard for the jury, and why Blanche is making progress is, by the end of this does the jury have reasonable doubt about Cohen telling the truth on elements of the crime?
The other stuff won’t matter when they deliberate. It just accrues. What we saw in the dramatic back and forth as it has been described today, “But you did lie, have you lied? Why do you sound like this? And a podcast where you sound unhinged.”
All of that accrues. And a jury goes back, and say, “I doubt whether he’s telling the truth about an element of the crime.” For example, Trump’s criminal intent in 2016. I think they are landing blows.
You know it's going poorly for Michael Cohen when Ari Melber and MSNBC are dishing the bad news to viewers.
'I think the punches are building cumulatively. I think Tuesday there were bruises, and today there is blood.'
All Trump needs is 1 juror.pic.twitter.com/mFefVUO3zJ
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) May 16, 2024
Anderson Cooper on Michael Cohen: "I think if I was a juror in this case watching that, I would think this guy is making it up as he's going along." pic.twitter.com/4Pfp5MQctG
— MAGA War Room (@MAGAIncWarRoom) May 16, 2024
CNN's Jake Tapper on President Trump's attorney Todd Blanche catching Michael Cohen in a lie today: "This does seem pretty bad." pic.twitter.com/IqiuS19Xlq
— MAGA War Room (@MAGAIncWarRoom) May 16, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Homeboy got slaughtered by Trump’s Attorney today.
He got slaughtered by the truth.
In a different time and place, one would think that a guy who lies as much as Michael Cohen does would be better at it.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
The hardest part of lying is keeping track of the lies. Cohen is just not very good at this.
Cohen, a proven liar and purjurer, is making this stuff up on the fly, no doubt with coaching from the biased prosecution, but he can’t manage the web of lies he has concocted.
Is it me, or is Cohen looking more and more like John F’n Kerry?
Yes. That’s why the left is having a meltdown today.
It’s not that Cohen is a liar. They knew he was a liar. They were COUNTING on the fact that he’s a liar.
Their problem is that he is such a horrifically BAD liar that he’s not giving their show trial any legitimacy.
Nobody could give their show tile legitimacy. It never had any to begin with. Anyone with half a brain already knew this is nothing butIt never had any to begin with. Anyone with half a brain already knew this is nothing but abusive power and It never had any to begin with. Anyone with half a brain already knew this is nothing but abuse of power and political persecution.
The left is having an absolute meltdown today because Cohen was so horrifically bad that they know they can’t prop him up.
They’re still going to get their precious conviction because of a far left NY jury, but they know that its going to give Trump a massive boost because they have nothing on him other than him committing the crime of Campaigning While Orange.
This guy thought he would be Attorney General.
I mean considering the level of quality of Democrat Attorney Generals like Holder and Garland, its not that far-fetched.
Jeff Sessions was no prize.
We could have done worse. And, did.
Doesn’t matter. NY jury filled with card-carrying Dem bots.
I was just going to say the same thing. I hope a week or so from now, people can look back and say, ‘See, you guys were being way too pessimistic.’ But, the reality is urban juries are FAR more political than they are fair and reasonable. And given the laughably favorable rulings Merchan gifted to the state in voir dire, he all but guaranteed the jury would be comprised of Trump-hating imbeciles. The state hasn’t come anywhere close to proving their claims with a preponderance of the evidence much less beyond reasonable doubt. I’m just terrified it won’t matter.
NY really is a special place. Seems like the judge will allow the jury to convict President Trump of some other felony offense without ever requiring the prosecution to allege or prove the other felonious offense,
That is why the judge’s jury instructions are the most important thing. Judge Merchan could structure the jury instructions such that Cohen’s testimony is actually irrelevant. Those instructions could make conviction a forgone conclusion. I would probably be overturned on appeal, but it would allow Merchan to send Trump to Rikers pending appeal.
The prank caller was Trump, using the voice of a fake 14 year old.
What can be expected on re-direct.
He did do that once, didn’t he. I’d forgotten that
Funny
Peripheral topic: Is there any commentator or newsreader left who can get through two sentences without “yah-know”?
It’s called dysfluency. Ordinary conversation is absolutely filled with it, as well as broadcast improvisation, if you transcribe it carefully. The brain tunes it out so successfully that it’s hard to transcribe. Here’s a careful transcription of Imus on Princess Diana’s death – I can’t stress hard enough how hard it is to transcribe these invisible syllables:
Imus: I thought it was extraordinary until Charles explained to me it wasn’t, but, ah front page of the Washington Post and the New York Times this morning, above the fold, the story is, ah, well the fold I guess meaning, well you know what it means..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..ah Can The Royals Survive? and I’m thinking, ah I..di..wo..wu..whuwhu..okay. But I guess that is a significant story..
McCord: ..right..
Imus: ..because ah because people in Britain are calling are questioning their expression of, of ah grief, that it’s apparently not appropriate or not what they think it should be or..
McCord: ..um hmm..
Imus: ..[unintelligible]..
McCord (over): ..[unintelligible]..
Imus: ..yeah, they haven’t responded well, they haven’t ah..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..they’re not flying the flag at Buckingham Palace because..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..I guess they’re not there, but. I mean they haven’t they haven’t performed, but they they’re they they they don’t perform well in in virtually almost anything they do, other than wearing hideously stupid hats and looking as though they’re all related through obviously more than marriage, just just an inbred bunch of goobers..
McCord: ..they do look goofy I sw..
Imus: ..jug eared..
McCord: ..[unintelligible]..
Imus: ..inbred nitwits..
McCord: ..any formal ceremony and they wander around, and they’re in..
Imus: ..well..
McCord: ..the ermine robes and all those goofy little hats..
Imus: ..yeah..
McCord: ..with all the jewel..
Imus: ..the Queen and the Queen-mother and they’re just sickening people. Anyway..
McCord: ..carrying scepters and..
Imus: ..But they they are the essence of that country and have been..
McCord: ..yup..
Imus: ..for hundreds and hundreds of years, and they are not going to get rid of them..
McCord: ..yeah..
Imus: ..ah if for no other reason than just to keep them around to beat up on them. Which is somewhat more entertaining..
McCord: ..keep them around for amusement..
Imus: ..yes, yeah..
McCord: ..rope them off, sell tickets..
Imus: ..rope them off, and sell tickets and charge admission to look at them. Which is essentially what they do now. Their they they their their primary source of ah, they are a tourist attraction.
McCord: ..that’s right..
Imus: ..So.
Harry Litman, a favorite for crazy eyes and Trump derangement, sees no problem, with legal analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNBSuZ3DjFY
I suffered through watching this. I have seldom seen a more deluded individual who actually *believes* Cohen, through every self-contradiction and reversal. I hope Harry gets help.
You have to congratulate CNN on terming the new “highly uncool”
https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1791179981260759473
The process is the punishment, and a conviction would be overturned on appeal, but not till after the maelstrom of “Convicted Felon!” news stories.
Just before Covid hit, I somehow served on a jury in a Federal homicide case just outside DC. We came to the proper conclusion based on the facts, evidence, and law. If that could happen in a deep blue political area, I hold a slight glimmer of hope that President Trump’s jury might return an honest verdict of acquittal.
Or maybe the hack judge will end the whole farce with a directed verdict.
None of these scenarios seems likely, and putting faith in New Yorkers is often a losing wager. A vote for conviction is a ticket for free drinks and adoration from fellow Manhattanites (Manhattaners? Whatever. Puck the Rangers/Yankees/Giants/Jets/Mets/WNBA team).
The Judge will write jury instructions that compels a conviction. Remember, the Judge says what the law is, and this particular law can be interpreted in creative and expansive ways because it it normally used in plea bargains where the defendant will not challenge the verdict.
Did I read that the prosecution [“ But Blanche confronted Cohen with text messages that were not shown by prosecutors” ] withheld exculpatory evidence?
Or did they just not mention it?
The next and better question is:
Is Alvin Bragg guilty of suborning perjury?
Only if he knew about it. I think if he’d known about the texts he would never have brought up the phone call in the first place.
How could he not have known about the texts? He or his office must have pulled all the phone activity around that time of the call. The only way Bragg could not have known is for someone in his office discovering the texts and not telling him and he never asked trusting the prosecutors competence especially that big gun from the Biden DOJ. This looks more like misconduct than incompetence by someone and a honest judge should be very interested in this and what else Bragg hasn’t brought forth.
His office had the texts, but he didn’t know about them because nobody on his team realized their significance and brought them to his attention. They’re only significant because they took place such a short time before the phone call, and the call itself was so short.
If he’d known about them he would never have brought up the phone call in the first place.
Nah, you give Bragg too much credit. Consider the circumstances. Bragg
(and James) has been on a mission to get Trump. That madness blinds people to what is obvious. Bragg had the text transcripts, They prepped Cohen. Cohen is the key witness connecting Trump to approving the payments. When did Trump approve? When? That phone call says Cohen. Nothing else. Th/e Prosecution must have known. The texts were in front of them. They did not discharge their duty to get at truth so insane was their dream of getting Trump. Circumstantial, but the case for subornation of perjury is pretty damn strong.
THAT PHONE CALL WAS THE CONNECTION. Had they not brought it up they’d have no Trump approval.
Milhouse, I thought you were smarter than this.
They had the texts but never realized their connection to the phone call. That was the key insight that destroyed this narrative.
Don’t listen to the demonic liar from Hell.
The prosecutors didn’t show these messages to Cohen. Presumably they didn’t think they were relevant. But they must have given them to the defense during discovery, otherwise how would the defense have got them?
The messages weren’t relevant, until Cohen spun a story about a 90-second phone call that he made a mere 10-15 minutes later, and someone on the defense side suddenly realized that these messages must have been the real topic of that conversation, leaving no time to be discussing anything else.
I don’t think what you say makes sense. The prosecutors, at least one of them, had to have known about the messages before Cohen got put on the stand with his phone story. Without that story there is little reason to have him there. To have those texts and still let Cohen get sworn in without giving them beforehand to the defense is very fishy to say the least. The prosecution, in my view, knew full well about the texts and the reason for the phone call but hoped the defense wouldn’t bring it up. Who lets a witness get on the stand not knowing what they are going to say?
>> Who lets a witness get on the stand not knowing what they are going to say?<<
An incompetent prosecutor like Bragg. That's who.
Bragg’s not incompetent. He’s Affirmative.
Not going to argue with that. This is why Brandon sent the #3 at Justice over to help out. Won’t be enough I think
You’re the one not making any sense. How can you say the prosecutors didn’t give these texts to the defense? If they hadn’t, how would the defense have got them? Obviously they did give it to them.
But they didn’t realize what the texts meant. They had them but they didn’t know about them. If they’d realized the significance of these texts, they would never have brought up the phone call in the first place, because they would have understood that the texts destroy it as evidence.
Remember, they’ve got hundreds, if not thousands of texts. And these were not at the same time as the phone call, they were shortly before the call. So it took a flash of insight to make the connection. Someone on the defense team did make it, and once it’s been made you can’t unmake it.
If the call had been longer, Cohen could get away with saying, “Well, we spoke about two things”. But it was only 90 seconds, which is barely enough to talk about the prankster, let alone anything else.
No they didn’t withold it or the defense wouldn’t have had it. What he said ON THE STAND IN FRONT OF EVERYONE is that the prosecutors failed to point this out to him in preparation for his testimony. In other words, they didn’t catch this hole in his story.
He forgot the reason for the phone call? The prosecution should have reminded him of the texts in the first place as they place his entire testimony in question. If, as you say, they didn’t catch this hole in his story then the entire prosecution is grossly incompetent. I think they know how silly this entire thing is and are trying anything and everything to make it something it isn’t without getting sanctioned by the court.
Oh please, they prosecution knew full well of this “hole in his story” but most likely instructed Cohen not to mention those text messages in an attempt to cover-up the real reason for that 90 second phone call. (ie. you’re gonna be in a boatful of trouble if the real reason for that phone call comes out. So don’t mention the text messages. Don’t say a word about them.). But the defense caught him out. And Cohen’s response that the “prosecutors failed to point this out to him” is just another lie from a guy with a proven history of telling lies.
Remember, the whole reason for this farce of a trial is to Get Trump™ by any means necessary. So I wouldn’t put it past Bragg to encourage his “Star Witness” to suborn perjury. All to Get Trump™ and derail his presidential campaign.
I only disagree for one reason. Then they are definitely guilty of suborning perjury and are dumb enough to leave a breadcrumb trail.
Better to feign ignorance and risk losing if the lie is caught then to go down with the ship.
I agree – both the left and the right have known all along that Trump will be convicted at this trial, The facts have never mattered in this process and never will. Crooked Prosecutor, crooked Judge, hand-picked jury from the deepest blue well of jurors in the country. Micheal Cohen can ride a pony, naked, around the courtroom shouting that Santa Claus told him Stormy Daniels had sex with him too, and there still will be a conviction of Trump.
Everyone on the left and on the right knows that the conviction will be overturned by the courts eventually, but not until a year or two after the election.
So the real question is the effect of the trial on the voters. The Democrats hope it will encourage Dem turnout and dampen support for Trump among Independents who don’t like “Felons”
I worry that they may be right. The average voter is really very uninformed, and little details like Cohen’s perjury will escape their notice. They only half-hear the headlines, at best.
Then the voters, and us, deserve the hellscape that will result from Obama, errr, Biden being re-elected, with a full scale “Fundamental Transformation” of the United States.
Weekend at Biden’s may be more evident after Biden passes some time after his coronation due to age and mental infirmity. He will be hidden in the basement, and others will speak for him.
The Soviet level “hide the dead premier” will attempt to fool the populace.
Turley (and others) has been saying that the prosecution hasn’t even identified, much less proven, a crime. If he’s correct, none of what Cohen says matters. He’s testifying about a non-crime.
If what you say is true, then how can the jury be asked or expected to convict a defendant on a non-crime?
Because the actual crime is he won an election as Donald Trump
Answer: because in a show trial the accused is by definition guilty
They’ve identified the crime, but they haven’t spelled out exactly how all its elements have been fulfilled, and without doing that they can hardly prove that they have been. But it’s a complicated multi-step construction, so they’ve been getting by on sleight of hand, and if the judge lets it go through to the jury they may be flimflammed into convicting.
They haven’t identified an actual crime, Milhouse.
At this point, Milhouse should be referred to as “Mickey Mouse”
Mickey Mouse has bent over backward with his gyrations of how the crime is soooooo convoluted that we normies cannot understand. No wonder lawyers are so hated.
Actually, they have pointed to what this is all about. A NY law about influencing elections is what Bragg is trying to shoehorn his crud onto to make it a felony. Forget that law has never been used.
That it’s never been used is irrelevant. There’s a first time for everything. The problem is that the law makes it a crime to conspire to influence an election by illegal means. So the means must already be against some other law. And they have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, but they haven’t even really said what they actually mean by it.
Yes, they have identified an actual crime. Falsifying business records in contemplation, or to conceal, another crime. That is the actual crime that he is being tried for, and they’ve never concealed that.
The problem is that one of the elements of this crime is “another crime”, which needn’t have actually been committed, but must at least have been contemplated. Since it’s an element of this crime, they must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. And to do that they must first specify what it is. And they’ve been very vague about that.
It appears that the “other crime” is a NY law against conspiring to influence an election by illegal means. But that just kicks the can one step further, because now you have to say what those “illegal means” were, and prove them.
And that is where the federal campaign finance law seems to come in to it, but as far as I know they’ve never actually officially said so. That ought to mean the jury can’t convict, because an element of the crime charged hasn’t been proved at all, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. But if the judge lets it through jurors can be easily flimflammed into thinking the element has been proved.
No Milhouse, the prosecution has never revealed the underlying “crime” that was supposedly covered up by falsifying business record by calling the payment to Clifford a “legal expense”.
It’s the “Orange Man Bad” statute
It’s the “I’m a Democrat” so the crime is what I didn’t say it is.
Yes, but that is not the crime itself. It’s merely an element in that crime.
And apparently they did identify that crime, but a key element of that crime is that there must be yet another crime, so it just kicks the can one step down the road.
The judge knows perfectly well the prosecution has not proven any such felonious crime. He’s not being flimflammed. He’s a corrupt hack supporting this gross abuse of law enforcement power.
I didn’t say he was being flimflammed, I said the jury could be.
Yes, he has. I guess I dive deeper into the news than most. It is still a total farce
You are correct
You shut up, you demonic liar from Hell, servant of the Prince of Lies.
He has identified the crime for which Trump is being tried.
He has even identified the “other crime” that is an element of this crime.
We’re now at the “illegal means” that are an element of that crime. As far as I know he has not clearly identified that. And that is far enough down the chain that it’s easy to confuse people.
Also, the statute of limitations has not expired, even without the felony statute. The clock stopped every day that Trump was not in NY State, so two years had not yet passed before the indictment. The fact that he was not in hiding, and there was no practical reason why he couldn’t be contacted on those days when he was away, is irrelevant. The statute says the clock stops when the accused is out of state, so it stops. That’s all.
The judge will rule that he doesn’t have to. The judge will instruct the jury they don’t even have to agree what crime was being covered up and that crime could be past present or future at the time it was done.
Well, it could be past, present, or future. The statute explicitly says the other crime doesn’t ever have to have been committed. It could merely be contemplated. And it doesn’t have to be a NY crime; it could be in another state, a federal crime, or even in another country.
Is it possible to overturn something on, like, 50 grounds at once?
This keeps reminding me of the OJ case. The prosecution didn’t make their case in the court room — unforced errors, sloppiness. They just expected the other side to lay down.
I think Todd Blanche is carefully analyzing the situation as it stands right now, and is considering whether or not he should subpoena Costello.
If he does and Costello’s account is truthful and it holds up, his testimony should drive the legal stake into the dubious heart of this case.
Todd Blanche has meticulously and methodically explained so far how Cohen has a psychological pattern of pathological lying; in that Cohen clearly shows he:
1) Has lied indiscriminately about a wide range of topics.
2) Has told untruths about minor events.
3) In doing so, feels undeterred by the fear of getting caught.
4) Has demonstrated on TikTok and text messages how he experiences a rush when he gets away with lying.
5) Continue to lie even when he is confronted with the truth.
One can only hope that one or both of the attorneys on the jury will realize that THEIR futures will be affected by their decision. They may think that voting guilty will be helpful because of where they practice, or just maybe they will realize that their professional competence will be forever questioned by a guilty verdict.
I think jurors will fear “violent community retaliation” for a not guilty verdict more than anything else. Career considerations won’t affect the lawyers.
Kudos to Trump’s lawyers for outstanding parsing of a flood of information and being able to connect the dots on the fly during a witness’s testimony. The prosecutors, on the other hand, were careless with using an admitted perjurer as a witness and not triple checking everything he said against all the available information. The prosecutors are just the latest victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome with a side helping of confirmation bias — or guilty of enabling more perjury by Cohen.
I’m looking forward to 2o26 or 2027 when Cohen’s back on the witness stand testifying about how Bragg, Colangelo, Goldman, Garland, and any others that can be implicated coached him to lie to bring the charges against Trump in a near specific election interference and conspiracy case I think Ken Paxton is thinking about right now! It should be an easy case to prove in front of a West Texas judge and jury.
Don’t forget to add Weimann and McCord to the list.
Watch for Costello’s testimony
Seems as if bodyguard Keith Schiller’s testimony may be somewhat important.