Trump Indicted by Manhattan District Attorney

[N.E. Brigand]

I completely forgot this prescient testimony from Michael Cohen in 2019:

[RoseMorninStar]

Donald Trump seems to be using members of Congress to violate the gag order in this case. He's been joined in court by various senators and representatives, who then go outside the courtroom to attack the credibility of the witnesses. I think it's reasonable to assume -- but hard to prove -- that he directed them to do this.

What horrible, awful, unscrupulous, persons. And some of these are supposed to be our lawmakers? I shouldn't be surprised but I hope the law prevails. What a jerk. Jerks.

[Sunsilver]

N.E. too bad more people didn't pay attention to Cohen's testimony. As Trump's 'fixer', he knew more about Trump's way of 'doing business' than nearly anyone else who worked for him. Reading his book was a real eye-opener for me. I knew Trump was not a good person, but had no idea just how horrible he was until I read what Cohen had to say about him and was expected to do for him.

One example from the book that really sticks in my mind. When Trump was building one of the casinos in Atlantic City, he chose the very cheapest brand of Benjamin Moore paint, even though he was warned of the paint's inferior quality. Of course, after just a couple of years, the paint began to flake and fade. Trump ordered Cohen to do something about it. Cohen got on the phone, and bullied Benjamin Moore, threatening to destroy their reputation as a company unless the reimbursed Trump's company for the paint. Eventually, they caved in, and refunded the money.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Some may recall that before Trump was indicted in this case, his lawyers presented a rebuttal witness, attorney Robert Costello, who tried to get Cohen to hire him when the DoJ started investigating him. Cohen testified at some length about his interactions with Costello today, and there is some speculation that he will be called as a witness by Trump's lawyers.



Apparently, Costello is going to also testify at the ludicrous Congressional "weaponization' committee tomorrow where he claims he is going to provide "exculpatory" information. But how can he do that without violating attorney-client privilege? Time will tell!

[N.E. Brigand]

Michael Cohen's direct examination by prosecutors having concluded, it's time for cross-examination by Donald Trump's team:



Erica Orden says that question was then stricken from the record. But it appears their goal is to rattle Cohen.

[N.E. Brigand]

This is still happening:



I've been very reluctant to make much of the "Donald Trump is in decline" narrative, because while I think he has some undisclosed health issues, they were never enough to keep people from supporting him, but for him to fall asleep today of all days is ... something.

Edited to add another report of Trump falling asleep in court this afternoon.

[N.E. Brigand]

Michael Cohen's direct examination by prosecutors having concluded, it's time for cross-examination by Donald Trump's team:

[Tweet from Erica Orden: "Blanche opens his cross-examination by asking Cohen..."[/url]]

Erica Orden says that question was then stricken from the record. But it appears their goal is to rattle Cohen.

Not sure it worked. I see that Cohen's response (before the judge called counsel to the bench) was that it "sounds like something I would say."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

From all accounts that I have seen, Cohen has continued to be measured and calm throughout the cross-examination so far. However, Blanche suggested at the end of the day that he had at least another full day of cross, so we'll see if he starts to get rattled. So far the cross seems to be very rambling and almost incoherent.

[Sunsilver]

I've been very reluctant to make much of the "Donald Trump is in decline" narrative, because while I think he has some undisclosed health issues, they were never enough to keep people from supporting him, but for him to fall asleep today of all days is ... something.

N.E., some have said he's on uppers and downers, specifically Adderall and some form of tranquilizer/sleeping pill. I have to admit that's a possibility, especially give the stress a presidential campaign is going to put on someone his age.

And this report is from a pretty reputable source, though please note, it doesn't mention Trump specifically: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234953535/ (The DoD Inspector General). However, IMO, this could not have taken place without his knowledge and approval.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Or it might not be that hard to prove after all?

No, not too hard.

[Sunsilver]

Wow! SMH...

[Frelga]

The bloody arrogance of them.

[N.E. Brigand]

Today Michael Cohen testified today that in February 2018, with Donald Trump's approval, he provided New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman with a deliberately deceptive statement about the payments made to Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors showed a text from Cohen to Haberman reading, "Big boss just approved me responding to complaint and statement. Please start writing and I will call you soon." While I think it's true that Haberman is primarily an access journalist whose Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on Donald Trump consists largely of her repeating what he wanted her to print, some people are making too much of today's testimony: I agree with Anthony Kreis's statement that what she did in this case "is normal practice for journalists. Inside sources give reporters a heads up about news that's about to break -- something we'd typically call a scoop -- and they write their stories ahead of time and line up other sources for comment. Standard Operating Procedure." And we are better off having Haberman's reporting than having nothing.

But I would add three further thoughts:

1. There is endless complaining from the right about how the media mistreats Donald Trump by relying on anonymous sources. Often those sources are Trump himself. Often Trump is using the media as much as they're using him. I wish those people would look at this testimony and understand that.

2. Haberman's need for continued access to Trump leads her, I suspect, to not print information that would permanently damage her relationship with him. And in her efforts to help readers get inside Trump's head, I think that, like Saruman, who found it "perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy" (as Gandalf said), she suffers from tunnel vision that prevents her from seeing the big picture, or probably sometimes from seeing what Trump gets out of her stories.

3. Haberman is still engaging in the same sort of reporting now. To that end, I meant to cite this item yesterday but ran out of time:



What I meant to ask yesterday was: did Haberman come up with this mistaken legal argument on her own, or was she repeating something from the Trump camp?

- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Meanwhile, a New York Appeals Court today upheld Judge Merchan's gag order.

[N.E. Brigand]

Michael Cohen today confirmed David Pecker's earlier testimony that he, Cohen, told Pecker that Pecker would face no trouble from the Federal Election Commision because then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions would take care of that. Cohen added that that assurance came from then-President Donald Trump.

[RoseMorninStar]

I'm just realizing now that SMH stands for 'shaking my head' and not 'so much hate' .

SMH.
The gag order should be enforced. That way Trump's own supporters would be responsible for putting him in jail

[Sunsilver]

Rose, yup, and yup!

[N.E. Brigand]

Donald Trump today, speaking outside the courtroom, appeared to acknowledge that he was a party to the non-disclosure hush money agreement with Stormy Daniels. One part of his defense has been to claim that he had no knowledge of that agreement until after the fact. In this case, if the prosecutors think it will help them, is there yet a way that they can enter video of that statement into the record?

(And what if Trump makes an even more inculpatory admission two weeks from now, when the jury is deliberating? Heck, what if he said something like, "Now that the jury can't hear about it, I want everyone else to know that I definitely committed these crimes" -- what recourse does the state have in a situation like that?)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To the best of my recollection, the defense has not argued that Trump had no knowledge of the agreement, just that he didn't reimburse Cohen (which is equally untrue). I went back and looked at Blanche's opening statement. He says:

You'll hear that Ms. Clifford/Ms. Daniels, did,
in fact, sign an NDA in October of 2016 in exchange for
$130,000.
But think for a moment what the People just told you.
President Trump did not pay Mr. Cohen back
$130,000. President Trump paid Michael Cohen $420,000.
And in the same breath, the People told you that
President Trump is known as a frugal businessman, that he pinches pennies.
But, think for a moment of what the People just
ask yourself: Would a frugal businessman, would a |
man who pinches pennies repay $130,000 debt to the tune of |
$420,000

And then later:

Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels or Stephanie
Clifford $130,000 in exchange for her agreeing to not
publicly spread faise- false ciains about President
Trump is not illegal.

But he never said that Trump didn't know about the agreement.

[N.E. Brigand]

Ah, thanks for that correction. I thought the defense argument was, in part, that Michael Cohen did this on his own (and as far as I have heard, we haven't seen a copy of the agreement signed by Donald Trump himself) out of the goodness of his heart rather than at the direction of Trump and then Trump paid him back out of the goodness of his heart.

[RoseMorninStar]

Heart?