Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in the New York Post on the first day of cross examination for Michael Cohen. He still has one day of cross examination ahead of him on Thursday. With the government resting after Cohen’s cross examination, I believe that an honest judge would have no alternative but to grant a motion for a directed verdict and end the case before it goes to the jury. Judge Juan Merchan will now have to give the full measure of his commitment to the rule of law. Given the failure to support the elements of any crime or even to establish the falsity of recording payments as legal expenses, this trial seemed to stumble through the motions of a trial. Michael Cohen was only the final proof of a raw political exercise. For critics, some of Cohen’s answers appear clearly false or misleading. Like their star witness, the prosecutors have shown that they simply do not take the law very seriously when there is an advantage to be taken. Cohen has truly found a home with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Here is the column:
On Tuesday, the prosecution surprised many by suddenly announcing that it would rest its case against former president Donald Trump with the completion of testimony by Michael Cohen.
It was surprising because the prosecution never clearly stated the crime that it was proving, the elements of that crime, or even why denoting payments related to Stormy Daniels were not properly recorded as legal expenses.
Indeed, the only thing the prosecutors proved was that, in the pantheon of dishonesty, there are liars, pathological liars . . . and Michael Cohen.
Cohen spent the last two days insisting that he used to be a liar but lied to help former President Donald Trump. If that is the thrust of his testimony, it is just the latest lie told by Cohen under oath.
Cohen has lied to Congress, courts, special counsels, the IRS, the banks, and virtually every creature that walks or crawls on the face of the Earth.
Notably, his past conviction for business and tax fraud were not taken in the interests of Trump but himself.
When he admitted on the stand that he lied during his prior plea agreement, that was not to assist Trump who he had already denounced. It was to advance his own interests.
There is every indication that Cohen is still lying.
Cohen repeatedly said that he could not remember even recent calls after recounting calls from eight years ago with crystal clarity. He said that he could not remember key exchanges and statements. However, these paled in comparison to other glaring moments.
Take, for example, his testimony on his unethical decision to secretly record a Sept. 6, 2016 telephone call with Trump.
It was a breathtaking betrayal that most lawyers would not contemplate, let alone carry out.
When asked by the prosecutors about that act, Cohen bizarrely claimed that he did so to guarantee that David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, would “remain loyal to Mr. Trump.”
No one seriously believes that this is true. It does not even make sense. Pecker was speaking to Trump about the payments and even met with him at the White House.
Playing for him a call with Trump would produce nothing but confusion rather than pressure for Pecker.
Moreover, why would Cohen tape the call without letting Trump know? The obvious motive was to squirrel away material to use against Trump if he ever needed a little leverage.
Again, it was for Cohen.
Cohen’s testimony showed that he has consistently acted in his sole interest.
After portraying his sudden cooperation with prosecutors as a type of Road to Damascus, jurors learned that all roads lead back to Cohen and his bank accounts.
After telling the jury that he has dedicated his life to righting the wrongs of Trump and holding him accountable, he admitted that he repeatedly acted to undermine the prosecution in order to make a buck.
Told by prosecutors to stop doing public interviews, Cohen did not care. He did roughly two dozen television appearances and recorded hundreds of podcast episodes.
He admitted that Trump is mentioned in virtually every episode, of which he did roughly four a week.
He recounted how he raked in millions on books, including one titled “Revenge.” He admitted that he is selling items like a $32 shirt with a photo of Trump in a jumpsuit behind bars and a coffee mug with the phrase “send him to the big house, not the White House.”
He is also peddling a reality show called “The Fixer,” in which he promises viewers, “I am your fixer.”
After just a few hours of cross examination, it was clear that Cohen is the same grifter saving himself — one Venmo at a time.
Yet, Cohen continued to reframe reality in his own self-constructed image.
When asked about his TikTok antics, he portrayed his postings as a type of sleep deprivation therapy, explaining that “having a difficult time sleeping and [he] found an out.”
No sane prosecutor would rely on Cohen, let alone make him the entirety of their case.
The prosecutors did not even bother to show that Trump was responsible for or knew about how the payments were recorded on ledgers and business records.
They also just shrugged away the need to show why denoting these payments as “legal expenses” was fraudulent — or what the correct description might be.
Those details might be demanded in any other courtroom, but this is New York and the defendant is Donald Trump.
For Bragg and his team, it is all about what they can get out of this case despite the law.
In that sense, they found a kindred spirit in their star witness, and Michael Cohen has finally found a place that values what he calls on his reality show promo his “particular set of skills.”
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
The Left’s SOL Con Game
The statute of limitations on the misdemeanors Trump is charged with is 2 years. That SOL expired long ago.
However, the lawfare Left alleges (at least today) that the SOL had to be extended because Trump was out of the state of NY, and thus beyond the reach of Manhattan “justice.” (That “beyond the reach” is laughably false, as there are numerous legal mechanisms by which to serve a person who is out of state.)
The more important point is this: Bragg indicted Trump in March 2023, when Trump was in and a resident of Florida. Trump surrendered in April 2023 — when he was in and a resident of Florida.
Care to explain why what Bragg did in March/April 2023 could *not* have been done within the 2-year statute of limitations?
In the pursuit of an absurdity, contradictions are not an obstacle.
*** Care to explain why what Bragg did in March/April 2023 could *not* have been done within the 2-year statute of limitations?***
Very simple.
He didn’t indict earlier because he knew that the SOL had NOT EXPIRED, and he could take his sweet time to prepare a bullet proof indictment.
NY state law is crystal clear that the SOL is paused (or tolled) whenever the accused leaves the state.
Whether or not Bragg COULD have served Trump in Florida earlier is completely irrelevant.
If the SOL really had expired it would have been a very simple matter for his attorneys to go straight to the Appeals Court for a dismissal. If that was denied then they could have gone to his buddies on the Supreme Court.
BUT THEY DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why not ???????????????????????
Because they knew that it would be absolutely futile. NY law is crystal clear that the SOL was paused. Its constitutionality has been challenged repeatedly and has always been upheld.
Like all the other ridiculous MAGA conspiracy theorists you are simply howling into the wind. You never let actual facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Nice rant and ad hominem — which completely evades this Leftist assertion:
“[T]he SOL had to be extended because Trump was out of the state of NY, and thus beyond the reach of Manhattan “justice.””
For those who are focus challenged: Trump was out of the state of NY in March 2023. Yet he was not beyond the reach of Manhattan “justice.”
That fact eviscerates the Left’s argument for extending the SOL.
*** Trump was out of the state of NY in March 2023. Yet he was not beyond the reach of Manhattan “justice.”***
You are completely missing the point.
The fact that he was not beyond the reach of Manhattan justice in March 2023 is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY IRRELEVANT.
The statute simply says that the SOL is paused when the accused is absent from the state. Nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing about the accused ALSO having to be “beyond the reach of Manhattan justice”. He simply has to be out of the state. Every time he left the state the SOL clock stopped running.
Here is what you need to answer.
If there is any validity whatsoever to your theory, then why did Trump’s attorneys not even ATTEMPT to get the indictment dismissed on these grounds. They could have gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
BUT THEY DID NOT DO THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because they knew it would be futile. The statute is black letter law that has been repeatedly upheld.
It is endlessly fascinating to me that there is a common theme in the MAGA world. There is an unfailing belief that any law that you do not agree with must be unconstitutional. Fortunately, that is never the case.
“why did Trump’s attorneys not even ATTEMPT to get the indictment dismissed on these grounds.”
Asked and answered countless times.
They did. In February (among other times).
All caps with infinite exclamation points do not revive a dead issue — any more than does your foot-stomping about eternal misdemeanors.
OK. If they did try for dismissal, then they obviously FAILED.
Why???? Because it is black letter law that has withstood MANY constitutional challenges.
Therefore you are wrong, and my point still stands !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The SOL was paused every time he left the state, therefore the SOL DID NOT EXPIRE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your bizarre magical thinking that the SOL expired is just that, magical thinking. Just because YOU think the SOL expired does not make it so. I repeat, this is a constant theme in MAGA world. When you don’t like a legal finding or result, you just ignore it and say it does not apply.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
( A few extra exclamation points just for good measure )
“The SOL was paused . . .”
If that’s true (which it’s not) why did the misdemeanors need to be revived and extended to 5 years (via an unnamed “another crime”)?
The answer is they didn’t need to be “revived”. The alleged “other crime” makes the alleged falsification a felony.
Cohen is not quite up to par either as a (now disbarred) lawyer or as a witness. His incompetency even infects his own representation, as he embarrassed his current counsel by providing fake (oh, the irony!) legal citations for his own case.
Quite the spectacle of dishonesty and incompetence. What a mix. If one wishes to do evil, find someone who is up to the task!
As Megan Kelly noted today, Cohen reflects poorly on Trump. All will wonder, why did Trump choose this man to work with?
I care nothing for these multiple prosecutions, which weaken the nation more than anything. But the point is well taken. Cohen is a bad look on Trump.
***All will wonder, why did Trump choose this man to work with?***
The answer is very simple. They share the same character traits, which is what attracts them to each other.
They are both odious and amoral.
They are both losers and charlatans.
They are both con-men and criminals.
They are both cheats and liars.
They are both money grubbing grifters and fraudsters.
They are both ignorant and incompetent.
They are both corrupt and duplicitous.
They are both untrustworthy and vindictive.
They are both arrogant and uncaring.
They are both shameless and craven.
They are both hateful and cruel.
They are both malevolent and vindictive.
They are both selfish and manipulative.
They are both deplorable and despicable.
They are both back-stabbing double-crossers.
They are both malignant egotistical narcissists.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
And Biden the incompetent and is any better? Only he has sold his soul to China and Ukraine, He has no fiber. He wants the U.S. to become part of the One World Order (Roman Civilization has shown failed – too many people with too many different moral (?) principles cannot agree. At least Trump wants the USA to be strong and stand up for all our veterans and those who died for our country’s freedom to rise again as a strong Nation indivisible and mighty.
I will not surrender to the Chinese…
If chickens own their bodies, they can sell themselves to KFC if they want.
@Turley,
Whether Cohen committed perjury on the stand or not… its a moot point.
Trump’s lawyers can easily shred him w a single question…
Lawyer… “Mr. Cohen, yesterday your former lawyer, under oath, gave testimony to Congress where he alleged that the testimony you provided to this court was in fact a lie. So who is lying? You or your former lawyer?”
No matter what Cohen says… or even doesn’t say… he’s toast.
If he says he’s telling the truth…
Lawyer … ” Mr. Cohen, you were convicted of perjury, your lawyer wasn’t. ”
And that will end him.
Then the lawyer can motion for dismissal and watch the judge refuse it.
(Which will show just how much the fix is in against Trump and that this is election interference.)
-G
The Left (including “George”) have a sudden affinity for Cohen.
Such affinities are never an accident.
I wonder what odds Las Vegas is giving on whether Turley will devote yet another column to Cohen again Thursday — and then again on Friday.
Cohen is clearly the worthless scum that forms on the scum at the bottom of the scum bucket, but he’s also turning out to be Moby Dick to Turley’s Captain Ahab when it comes to literary Tales of Obsession.
“… to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”
And I thought You were obsessed with Turley.
Turley;s dishonest crapsite blocked my reply
Well, not Thursday, but today the next Cohen bash-fest has already posted. Perhaps Professor Turley is attempting to cleanse himself of his misguided praise of Michael Avenatti via Cohen as surrogate? Not that Cohen hasn’t richly earned every bit of opprobrium which may come his way.
And I will answer your clip with another:
Um…Cohen. As in…Jew.
Ever heard of “Kol Nidre”?
Of COURSE he lied. That’s what they do.
All vows said unintentionally that are incompatible with the tenets of his religion. It does not otherwise have a general significance.
F**k off, antisemite.
And no, it is NOT what “they” do. You are either too ignorant or too dishonest to notice the difference between oaths about past facts, and vows governing future conduct. In other words, the difference between perjury, which is a crime under US law as well as a sin, and breach of promise, which is a sin according to the Bible, but is NOT a crime in the USA (or any other country I’ve ever heard of).
In medieval Spain, Jews were forced at sword-point to swear that they will abandon Judaism. It is said that on Yom Kippur they would gather together and formally cancel any such vows, past or future. They could then pray on the Sacred Day with a clear conscience.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4475/jewish/Release-of-Vows.htm
First of all, it is not true that anyone in Spain was forced to convert. Jews were persecuted, and in 1492 were expelled, but at no point were they actually forced. It was always a choice — stay a Jew and suffer, or convert and prosper. Staying a Jew was always an option, and there was no threat of death, just heavy discrimination, and eventually expulsion. Most chose conversion. (Portugal did force conversion on many Jews, particularly children, but Spain didn’t.)
Second, Kol Nidrei precedes all of this by centuries, so it cannot have been a response to it.
Dr Lowenthal’s article is not an attempt to give the history of Kol Nidrei, but merely some thoughts about it.
The key point, however, is what I wrote above: In US law a vow is not binding at all. You can make a vow sincerely, and then change your mind. People do it all the time, and not only is there no law against it, it’s not even considered unreasonable. Circumstances change, minds change, people’s estimates of how hard a task would be often prove to have been too optimistic, etc. That is why US law concerns itself only with oaths, factual statements that are objectively either true or false, and do not control future behavior. Jewish law, however, regards vows as binding, and breaking them without first having them annulled is a sin. Thus Kol Nidrei.
If this lawfare wins the day one-party rules is next.
Do not confuse the death throes of the left with success.
Will Trump win this case ? Probably not, though the odds are batter than at the start.
Will it matter ? Probably not. Joe is constantly attacking polls right now. I suspect he is wrong, but he has a point sort of.
Polls predicted that Trump indictments would cost in 10pts. His polls went up.
One of the things I learned about markets is that the dislike uncertainty more than bad news.
I think the polls are similar – the free market is really nothing more than a poll where people have skin in the game.
I beleive that current Election polls have already mostly priced in the odds of a Trump conviction.
There could be a rise after a conviction. Or there could be a drop that does not endure.
Aside from the left saying “convicted felon” at every oportunity.
I do not think this trial will change much
At the same time Biden is litterally the worst president in US history.
And nothing is going to improve between now and november.
Democrats have an upcoming convention where they are terrified they are going to see a repeat of 1968 riots.
They may go virtual which might be nearly as bad.
Trump has gotten his debates.
He has stuck to his “Anywhere, Anytime” and he is getting debates under the best arrangements for Biden and the worst for him.
Exp[ectations of Biden in a debate will be incredibly low – if he can fog glass from start to finish, that will be a victory for him.
This is still a big win for Trump. Biden has two opertunities to stumble and fall and with everything in his favor – Biden is not up to this.
Trump did a reasonable job against Biden in 2020 at the debate that he was suffering from Covid.
He wiped the floor with Biden in the other debates.
Further Biden can not speak on any subject for long before making stupid errors today.
But lets assume somehow that Biden wins the election.
The trends as all going against Democrats.
On something like 9 of 10 issues facing the country – the Republic platform is favored by 70% of people.
We hit peak Woke in 2020.
What we are in the midst of right now is the death throes of a wounded animal.
@John Say,
Polls are fickle when it’s still early in an election year. We have seen polls end up being very wrong right up to election day. It’s foolish to rely on polls this early except to gauge current sentiment towards a candidate. Things can change in a heartbeat should some unforeseen event happen. Like the free market, polls may jump temporarily from excitement or enthusiasm that may only last a few weeks.
Plus, let’s not forget, push polls can have a large influence and portray false sentiment.
The chances of Trump winning this case are not good. His lawyers have been performing poorly and the expectations of the “brutal questioning” from defense lawyers was a dud. The foundation and corroboration of the crime/s were established early and prosecutors headed off any attempt to paint Cohen as untrustworthy were successful. It is highly likely this will be Trump’s first criminal conviction. Being found guilty may not land him in jail. But psychologically it may have an effect on independent voters and provide fodder for Biden to use against Trump.
And NOW the Garbage Media — by which I mean ALL of them — are giddy over the announcement that there WILL be a “presidential debate” between Joetard and Trump and maybe RFK Jr.
Naturally, the focus will not be policy OR politics, but instead will be PERFORMANCE ART, with theatrical reviews that are already being written about how well or how poorly one of the “debaters” performed in response to the idiotic questions of the fake “moderators.”
Stay tuned for weeks of media hype leading up to and following the fake “debate(s),” as various operatives and self-appointed referees of the Garbage Media fall all over themselves telling people what to think, who won, and who lost. Unless a volcano erupts in midtown Manhattan, news coverage of anything else happening on planet Earth will be virtually nonexistent as the Garbage Media makes itself the star of the show, takes center stage, and clowns take over the circus.
🚨BREAKING NEWS! 🚨
A new poll has been released and is making the rounds.
LGBTQIA+furries are now thanking Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu for eliminating all of the high rises in Gaza.
Now Hamas can not throw homos off of their buildings
🪂
🤣🤣
REGARDING ABOVE:
The ‘logic’ here is that liberals support Hamas so they should be embarrassed to know Hamas throws gays off buildings. It’s just Floyd Estovir posting under anonymous to fill comment space.
Jews are disgusting…
Did Michael Cohen ever tell the truth? Independent Bob.
All Together Now: ‘This Case Is A Sham’
Top Republicans are showing up at Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial not just to help him skirt his gag order, but also with a message: Not only is this a sham, but it’s a sham everyone can see.
“The conviction or acquittal — either way, the American people see this as a sham, and rightfully so,” one of those Republicans, Sen. J.D. Vance (Ohio), said Tuesday on Fox News.
“I think everybody in the country can see that [sham] for what it is,” said another, House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.).
Added a third, Vivek Ramaswamy, on Tuesday night: “I think many Democrats and many independents across this country understand watching this trial that this is a political sham.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/15/trump-allies-call-trial-sham-public-opinion-isnt-cooperating/
……………………………………..
Somewhere a special committee exists whose main function is the crafting of Republican talking points. Someone there has decided to bludgeon the public with ‘sham’ warnings regarding Trump’s trial. But curiously public opinion is moving in the other direction.
NEW POLL:
Bragg’s Case Shifting Opinion Against Trump
For the first time, a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that a majority of Americans (52%) believe former President Donald Trump “falsif[ied] business records to conceal a hush money payment to a porn star” — the charge at the center of his ongoing criminal trial in Manhattan.
This represents a new high — and a significant increase from previous Yahoo News/YouGov polls conducted before courtroom testimony began last month, suggesting that coverage of the trial may be shifting perceptions of Trump’s conduct.
If the jury agrees, Trump could become the first former U.S. president convicted of a felony.
In contrast, just 22% of Americans say Trump did not falsify business records to hide a hush money payment to a porn star.
Americans now approve of the hush money trial by a 12-point margin (49% to 37%); in April, that margin was 7 points (43% to 36%). The share of Americans who think Trump did, in fact, falsify business records has increased by 4 points since last month, and by 7 points since March 2023. The shares of that group who think Trump committed a crime in doing so (47%) and who say that crime is serious enough to warrant indictment and a trial (40%) are higher than ever before as well.
Please link to the actual poll.
Regardless – it is an outlier, and WHY would people have shifted ? Only legal wonks and left wing nuts have paid any attention to this.
And anyone who has paid any attention knows that Bragg has belly flopped.
Bragg not only did not prove records were falsified – he did not provide a single witness that said records were falsified.
But it is worse than that – if by some miracle you believe records were falsified (your a moron), that is not enough.
Without proof that was to cover up another crime – even that charge dies.
And there is no other crime.
There is no testimony of any crimes at all.
@John Say,
Even if it’s an outlier it’s still means there IS a change in perception about Trump. It means the case has been successful in showing the truth about Trump.
Bragg did prove records were falsified. Evidence and witness corroboration provided plenty for the jury to consider.
Cohen admitted on the stand that the records were falsified. The only way it can be proven they were not is if Trump testifies. He has to if he wants to challenge Cohen’s word. But we both know he won’t because he will wind up perjuring himself. This is why there is so much effort and time spent on discrediting Cohen, because he provides the crucial insider look into the scheme. Cohen is the Sammy the Bull Gravano of the Trump mafia organization so to speak. He may not be the most innocent witness, but he is still close enough to the inner workings of Trump’s organization to be credible.
“suggesting that coverage of the trial may be shifting perceptions of Trump’s conduct.” Not surprising when you consider who is providing the coverage of the trial. The MSM and Democrats are in alliance.
Public opinion, as well as press coverage, has focused predictably on Cohen’s direct examination which consisted of 8 hours of mendacious, Cohen-esque scandal- mongering at the behest of this Bragg-Merchan production strictly for the purpose of shocking the public conscience by means of tendentious, irrelevant testimony for the purpose of prejudicing the jury.
Thus, casual, ill-informed viewers or listeners turn out to be the actual ‘mark’ of Bragg-Merchan’s fraudster protagonists, for the former were never supposed to comprehend the facts of this case, something which this Bragg-Merchan production used as a ploy to divert public attention away from the absence of a stated crime or of supporting evidence for that crime. Is there a better way of assuring the public will not understand the relevant facts than by omitting the relevant facts?
Thus, given the deliberate shock- and- awe effect perpetrated thus far by the prosecution…recall parenthetically that public opinion has yet to be exposed to the defense side of the case… public opinion is now likely coalescing around the notion that Trump did shocking things and that he must be guilty of ‘what they say.’ But guilty of what?
Well, in the end, I must give a hat tip to the legal genius that realized that the absence of a clear statement of the actual crime against the accused, is rather an asset, not a liability, especially when the production team of Bragg-Merchan is the chosen vehicle.
Jonathan: As DJT’s first criminal trial wraps up perhaps we should reflect on another trial that has a striking similarity with the current case. The other trial was in NY in 1938 and was titled “People vs. Luciano”. Dennis Aftergut and Phillip Lucavara, two former federal prosecutors, had a piece in Slate yesterday comparing the Luciano case with the current “People vs. Trump”.
In 1938 Charles “Lucky” Luciano, a NT crime boss, was convicted of running an illegal prostitution ring. On appeal Luciano argued that there was insufficient evidence to tie him to the criminal acts of others involved in the scheme. Aftergut and Lucavara quote the decision of the NY Appeals Court as follows: “[Luciano’s] position as head of this combination did not bring him in direct contact with the victims of this scheme, and he displayed anxiety that he name be not too openly associated with the …enterprise. While no conspiracy is charged in the indictment, there is ample proof of a conspiracy among the appellants to organize prostitution on a basis most profitable for them…the acts and declarations of the conspirators in furtherance of the joint enterprise were admissible against all of those participating in the conspiracy”.
What is the relevance of “People vs. Luciano” to “People vs Trump”? The authors of the Slate piece point out that DJT has not been charged with “conspiracy”. But it’s pretty clear DJT was involved in an elaborate scheme to coverup his involvement in the payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Susan McDougal. Cohen testified that DJT had a “code” name, “David Dennison”. Cohen said DJT did not have an email address because “he [DJT] knows too many people who have gone down as a direct result of having emails that prosecutors can use in a case”. Cohen also testified that he never had a retainer agreement with DJT–another indication DJT tried to hide his involvement in Cohen’s scheme.
The upshot of the Luciano case can be summed up this way. Under the law of conspiracy in NY and elsewhere each and every participant in a conspiracy can be held liable for all the acts of fellow conspirators. That was the law in 1938 NY and today–even though no “conspiracy” charge is included in the indictments of DJT. As Aftergut and Lucavara point out: “You may have heard of the clever aphorism that ‘history never repeats itself, bit it does rhyme’. If ever there was a poetic irony that rhymes in the long history of the law, it may be the application of People v. Luciano to People v. Trump”. Could it be that Justice Merchan could give the same jury instruction that the judge gave the jury in the case of People vs. Luciano?
Some nobodies say something. Dennis swills the lies like a drunk, handed a $100 bill
Are you watching the Democrat Senator Gold Bar Menendez corruption trial?
Now that’s exciting. Should be wall to wall media coverage, no?
Did you see the criminal indictments for Democrat Congressman Henry Cuellar and his wife?
That should be quite a corruption trial also.
There’s just too much Democrat criminality and corruption to keep track of, eh?
DM in the Luciano case there WERE criminal acts.
As Turley noted the only actual crimes addressed in this whole case where those of Cohen – and ones that had NOTHING to do with this case.
Like Cohen’s taxi medalion scam or repeated perjuries.
Bragg did an excellent job of showing the Jury that The Trump organization was …. and organization.
If you cheery pick ONLY the testimony most favorable to Bragg – disregarding everything else.
You have No crime – not even the misdemeanor records claim.
Most of us expect a Manhattan Jury will convict Trump regardless – who needs facts when you are drowning in political animus.
Regardless, The jury would have to be morons to beleive this will not be tossed on appeal.
So they can convict as a political act to prevent Trump from being elected.
Knowing no one will ever be punished for their moral failure.
It is mostly not worth discussing with you – because you will beleive anything that suits your views.
The problem here is that even beleif is not enough.
Even if you believe everything Cohen and Daniels testified to, and disbelieve everyone who contradicted them – there is no crime here.
Thanks for that cogent and delectable comment, full of wisdom and eloquence.
As people used to say, ‘I pray for your good health amid many happy days.’
Was it not Cohen’s duty to tell his client that, btw, paying Stormy $$$ for a NDA was illegal if, indeed, it was illegal? Did he? or was he silent because it was not illegal?
It is not illegal to pay Daniels or anyone else for an NDA.
It is however a crime to concoct a conspiracy to hide the source of the payment by falsifying business records. Trump and Cohen both knew that and did it anyway.
Trump is charged with a “conspiracy”?
Nothing was hid.
It would have been Cohen’s duty – if it was illegal.
But it was not.
No one has testified that paying for an NDA is illegal.
Bragg has not argued that it was.
Because it is not.
Worse still as multiple witnesses have testified to – paying a lawyer to get you an NDA is ….. LEGAL FEES.
Legal fees are payments for services rendered. As such they are income to the attorney, who pays income taxes, just as the kid flipping burgers at McDonalds gets paid wages for service rendered and pays taxes.
When an attorney is paid for negotiating an NDA, the services he provides are the negotiation itself and preparation of documents. It is not normal practice for the attorney to then pay the settlement out of his own pocket, seek reimbursement and then classify the reimbursement as legal fees.
Fees for services rendered and wages paid for services rendered are not “GROSSED UP” to cover income taxes, which is what Trump did for the payments to Cohen. The payment to Daniels was made by Cohen out of his own pocket, after borrowing the money from a HELOC. Trump then reimbursed Cohen, but he had to pay twice what Cohen had paid out to Daniels to cover the taxes that Cohen owed on the transaction that was falsely classified as taxable legal fees.
Trump and Cohen conspired to conceal the fact that Trump was the ultimate source of the money paid to Daniels by classifying the reimbursement as legal fees. It cost the penny pinching Trump twice what he could have paid directly to Daniels, because he had to “gross up” the payment to Cohen to cover Cohen’s tax liability. He was willing to pay double the amount that Daniels demanded because it concealed the paper trail back to him.
This scheme is not legal fees for an NDA.
IT IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, I get it now. Two guys conspire to hide who paid for a legal act. And that conspiracy is a crime. So if I conspire with a friend to hide from my wife that I paid a $1000 bucks for a World Series ticket, I, and my friend, commit a felony?
You are deliberately making an apples to oranges comparison to be obtuse.
However, if you and your friend were both businessmen, and you paid the $1000 out of your business account, and then FALSELY recorded it in your business ledger as payment to your mechanic friend who fixed your car, then YES, you and your friend have conspired to falsify business records to achieve the desired concealment.
THAT WOULD BE A CRIME !!!!!!!!!
A) only in New York. B) a crime that would never be prosecuted. C) only a misdemeanor with a very short statute of limitations. Bragg’s case is dependent on the illegal coverup being a coverup of a CRIME. Paying $$$ for a NDA is not a crime.
Talk about clutching at straws !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
***A) only in New York***
So you agree it is a crime in NY.
***B) a crime that would never be prosecuted***
Your OPINION, which is of no relevance. The fact that it being prosecuted disproves your assertion.
*** C) only a misdemeanor with a very short statute of limitations***
The statute of limitations clock was paused (or tolled to use the legal expression) every time Trump left the state of New York. He left NY in 2017 to live in the White House. In 2019 he moved his legal residence to Florida. The SOL clock ran only for the brief visits he made to NY during that time.
The misdemeanor becomes a felony with the conspiracy and cover up allegations.
You are correct. Paying for an NDA is absolutely NOT a crime. However it is a PERSONAL expense. If he had treated the payment as a personal expense then there would no issue. He could have simply put $130,000 in hundred dollar bills in a briefcase and had it delivered anonymously to Daniels. That would be perfectly fine and legal. There would be no criminal activity, no charges, no trial.
BUT HE DID NOT DO THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead he chose to treat the payment as a business expense, not a personal expense.
There is no way whatsoever that paying off a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter can be treated as a legitimate business expense. Both Trump and Cohen knew that the payment could not be categorized as a legitimate business expense, so they concocted a conspiracy to cover up the payment by falsifying Trump’s business records to make it look as if the payment was actually for legal expenses.
That conspiracy to falsify business records is THE ACTUAL CRIME.
Turley, you should be placing your trust in the jurors to sort out whether any federal law was broken. There’s 2 lawyers on the jury…what more could you ask for? The Judge shouldn’t be the one deciding the case, the Jury should. I’ll accept whatever they decide as being fair and just. Either you believe in this system, or you should move to Russia (where the elites exclusively call the shots).
They’re democrat lawyers from Manhattan.
Worst possible combination – guaranteed to make it worse.
Coordinated political lawfare directly from the Whitehouse. 82% of the selected jury are Biden voters. Jurors were questioned if they followed DJT on social media and then were eliminated from selection. Trust the jury?
“I’ll accept whatever they decide as being fair and just.”
Too bad Judge Engoron doesn’t agree with you. Remember when Engoron explained that he enjoys his power as a judge to “correct” a bad jury decision because, as he tells us, juries sometimes “get it wrong”? Did ya hear him say that? Yah.
And of course you “accept the results” of the 2020 election as “fair and just”…. So we the people must acquiesce and “accept the results” like good little sheeple. No Protests Allowed says the Regime!
And those mandated covid shots are “safe & effective” because the gub’ment says so…..just LOL
“There’s 2 lawyers on the jury…what more could you ask for?” Huh? How is that reassuring to anyone? Last time I checked Michael Cohen was a lawyer, disbarred, but a lawyer nonetheless.
Michael Avenatti is Stormy Daniels former lawyer.
He’s in prison right now.
This is a state court not federal.
There is no indictment for a federal crime.
This jury – nor any other has the power to decide if any federal laws were violated.
That said – there is no testimony that claims federal laws were violated.
There is no testimony that NAY laws were violated.
Cherry picking the evidence Bragg presented,
Trump slept with Daniels, Directed Cohen to try to kill negative stories SOLELY for campaign purposes.
In doing so Cohen negotiated an NDA with Daniels, and was paid for his work – including reimbursing the payment to Daniels after the election.
All of this is perfectly legal.
Many people have said “Braggs theory appears to be xxx”.
But in fact Bragg has NOT presented a legal theory.
He has charged 34 counts of a specific crime.
He has failed to prove that – failed to provide evidence of that.
He has wasted lots of time providing evidence – essentially that Trump was campaigning for president.
I will trust a jury in Manhattan – when you are prepared to trust a jury in a place Trump won by 90% of the vote, to judge Joe Biden for exactly the same alleged crime.
The Biden campaign used donors money to lobby social media companies to supress the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Republicans have made a big deal out of that.
But the big deal is NOT that Biden sought to kill the story.
It is that the deep state – our government also sought to kill the story. THAT is actual election interference.
Judges are not supposed to allow cases to go to trial where the prosution has not enumerated the crimes that it is prosecution, and provided the judge and defendent of some evidence to support EVERY single Element of Every single charge.
Judges are not allowed to permit prosecutors to make claims to the jury or present evidence to the jury that is NOT specifically related to the crimes charged and the elements of those crimes.
Judges are not permitted to allow prosecutors to say anything about alleged crimes not charged.
There is no blanket “trust” of juries. We trust juries ONLY when the courts have protected the jury from fallacious argument and evidence.
Judges are not supposed to allow a case to be decided by a jury – when the prosecution has not presented atleast sufficient evidence of EVERY charged crime and EVERY element of that crime to meet a more likely than not standard.
If evidence of a single element of a single crime is absent, or insufficient, the case can not go to the jury.
We do NOT trust juries to get it right when the prosecution has bombarded them with fallacious arguments or evidence.
It is NOT the lawyers on the juries job to sort out the law correctly. It is the Judges.
Only a recalcitrant partisan would refuse a change of venue or an outright recusal. This case was a first, i.e., an indicted former president, and the current presumptive Republican nominee, just 6 mos. outside of a general election and a case with, enormous, extraordinary national implications.
Merchan, facing a prima facia case for both change of venue, and recusal, gave vent to his partisan desires to assure Trump did not escape the trap that was set for him by powerful partisan interests.
Utterly shameful, and, listen up Dems, completely and justifiably actionable, unlike this sham prosecution.
The judge on the case is corrupt. but the jury is somehow supposed to understand the law that the judge got wrong.
pbinca said: ” There’s 2 lawyers on the jury…what more could you ask for?”
Bragg is a lawyer. Merchan apparently is or was a lawyer. Cohen was a lawyer. Would you like to revisit your premise?
Democrats are Marxists. Nothing they say, accuse or claim is sincere. It is all a gulag of the mind.
Marxism Is a Gulag of the Mind
By Gary Saul Morson
The left manipulates politics by inverting the meaning of terms like ‘democracy’ and ‘equity.’
The test of whether a person really believes in freedom is the readiness to protect the freedom of opponents. It’s easy to do when the opponent is mild and honorable, but what Democrat will rise to defend Mr. Trump? They accuse him of harboring authoritarian designs as they prosecute him in several courts so that he can’t campaign, must spend his money defending himself, and may find himself in prison before the voting starts. Arresting potential challengers is what former KGB operative Vladimir Putin routinely does. In Maine and Colorado, Democrats tried to keep the presumptive Republican nominee off the ballot entirely. Who exactly is undermining democracy?
Mr. Trump was charged with planning to curtail democratic freedoms, but the Biden administration pressured social-media platforms to censor even true information about Covid and other sensitive topics. On campuses and in businesses, “equity,” like “true democracy,” has taken the place of its opposite, equality. Rights are for those who accept the new definition of rights; everyone is equal, except those who aren’t. George Orwell grasped this way of thinking perfectly. “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength,” goes the slogan of “1984.” Today diversity often means uniformity; equity, inequality; and inclusion, exclusion of those who think differently.
The Hamas charter explicitly calls for killing all Jews, but the terror group’s campus supporters, who often harass Jews, accuse Israel of genocide. They call President Biden “Genocide Joe.” No one uses hate speech more often than those who constantly accuse others of using hate speech.
If the illiberal elements of the Democratic Party win out over the traditional liberals, expect them to make sure they never lose power. It’s easy: Expand the Supreme Court, as some have already proposed, and appoint new justices who define equality, freedom and democracy as their opposites. Adjust how voting takes place and who counts the votes, as Mr. Putin did. Then extend a full-scale authoritarian regime (or worse) to all corners of life. With technology already or soon to be available, authorities pursuing true justice will make 20th century communist leaders look like amateurs.
Do those accusing the Jews of genocide do so to justify killing them? Will traditional Christians find themselves worshiping underground? How far will the principle of political projection extend? I don’t know, and I hope never to find out.
Mr. Morson is a professor of Slavic languages and literatures at Northwestern University.
Wall Street Journal
The charges against Donald Trump are blatant election interference, lawfare, and abuse of government power against political opponents. The DOJ declined to press charges on the allegations, as there was no crime. It is not illegal to use an NDA, and such forms are billed as legal fees. It is not the purview of New York to charge anyone for allegedly falsifying business records as part of a presidential campaign. Campaign finance law falls under the FEC. If every politician who used NDAs was then criminally charged with interfering with an election, then Congress would empty. Stormy Daniels has also changed her story numerous times, first claiming in writing that the encounter never happened, then saying she pursued him for a one night stand in the hopes that it would parlay into a TV career, which then morphed on the stand to her describing it as an assault where she blacked out, and her hands were shaking. She was a porn star who had made over a hundred porn videos, but we are supposed to believe she blacked out. Voters already knew Trump had been twice divorced for infidelity. Just as JFKs obsession with strippers and affairs were a private matter not relevant to his presidency, so Trump’s marital problems are not relevant. Voters want to be able to afford groceries, not marry Trump. Meanwhile, Joe Biden has not been charged with colluding with intelligence agents, the media, and various pundits to falsely claim that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian misinformation. Now, that did mislead voters in the 2020 election.
It is outrageous that Trump was fined half a billion dollars, because NY did not agree with how he evaluated his properties on bank loans. It was the bank’s job to agree or disagree with those valuations, and to do their due diligence. The loans were repaid on time, and the banks were eager to do more business with Donald Trump. Democrat activist AG Letitia James wanted to weaken Donald Trump’s chances in the 2024 election, and to seize an enormous chunk of his assets, as taxpayers flee The City.
It is also absurd to charge Trump with mishandling classified documents, which he had the right to declassify, but not Joe Biden, who did not have that right. Donald Trump consulted with the FBI on security for those documents, and his lawyers were going through proper channels to argue with the NA over what documents they were entitled to. Joe Biden, on the other hand, stole classified information throughout his tenure as a Senator and VP, during which time he had no right to declassify anything. He kept those documents unsecured, allowed his drug addicted son to read them, as evidenced as the information referenced in Hunter Biden’s emails, and he gave some of those classified documents to the Chinese-funded Penn-Biden Center. Yet it’s Trump, not Biden, on trial.
It is outrageous that E Jean Carroll won nearly $100 million from Trump, in a sexual abuse case from decades ago, where the only evidence was that she told her friends the allegation herself. No one can defend themselves against such charges decades later, and Carroll herself described an encounter where she went into a dressing room with a man she just met, in order to get naked and try on lingerie for him, laughed the entire time, until pushing him away, when he then left. It also defies the imagination that a sexual assault can occur at Bergdorf’s, with polite, efficient sales staff everywhere. This case has also been misrepresented as having found Trump guilty of rape. It did not.
Democrats are abusing their positions of authorities to interfere in the 2024 election. It is “Get Trump” by any means necessary. Although Professor Turley believes that Stormy Daniels trial should end, I believe that a NYC jury will convict Trump, regardless of there being no crime, and witnesses who did more for the defense than the prosecution. They will want to get Trump. They did it before in the E Jean Carroll case, and they’ll do it here. They will want to make him a felon more than see justice served. Such abuse of power is fine when directed at Trump, as long as they aren’t on the receiving end.
With this many false accusations, he will be eventually convicted. When Joe Biden cannot debate Trump on the standard of living compared by both their presidencies, he will just call him a criminal. It won’t matter that Joe Biden actually committed crimes, and was never held accountable.
What do Democrats have to run on? Defunding the police and the skyrocketing crime? Mass looting closing stores? Driving up the cost of groceries with soft-on-crime policies and increasing minimum wages? Draining the oil reserves, leaving us reliant on Venezuela for oil and driving up gas prices? Mandating electric cars that are made with slave labor in the Congo mining Cobalt, that are junked when the batteries die, more expensive, and leave people stranded on road trips? The nationwide antisemitic riots where pro-terrorist groups change genocidal slogans and call out to al-Qassam to kill Jewish students? Abandoning Americans in Afghanistan, Haiti, and Israel? Actively interfering with Israel rescuing American hostages with Israeli hostages held by gang raping, mass murdering Hamas? What else do they have, other than pointing to all these spurious charges against Trump?
trump admitted he did not declassify the document he took to mar a logo. He also defied the request to hand them back. Going to far as instructing his lawyer to lie on his behalf that he had no more documents in his possession when he knew he in fact did have more documents.
I know, it’s trump, he is the smartest man on the planet, most likely the smartest man that ever lived. so really anything he does is legal, just like Nixon.
Dream on.
The FBI has made a major fubar down at MAL. Evidence has been spoiled, nothing left to present to a jury.
What is being exposed in FL is damning.
While the evidence revealed is that The FBI/DOJ tampered with evidence and may have destroyed the chain of custody with respect to alot of it. That is the legal issue.
What has been exposes is more than error, it is MALFEASANCE.
The violations of chain of custody occured as a consequence of efforts to LIE to the public for the political gain of the president and the democratic party.
The truly BIG problem is not that the DOJ/FBI made a mistake.
It is that they excercised constitutional executive powers for unconstitutional purposes.
The Malfeasance in the MAL case together with lots of other evidence makes the compelling case that
All of this is just illegal political lawfare.
it is abuse of power.
“trump admitted he did not declassify the document he took to mar a logo.”
So what ?
That does not change the fact that he was free to take them to MAL and that doing so as president at the end of his term defacto declassified them.
I doubt Johnson KNEW he was declassifying the existence of the RS-71 when he called it the SR-71 in a press conference.
There is no magic incantation a president must make to declassify something.
Nor is it necescary for a president to KNOW that the actions he is taking declassify something.
The only part that Trump has gotten wrong is that you can not declassify telepathically.
But any intentional act that has the consequence of unprotecting something classified made by a president declassifies that – whether that president spoke the appropriate incantation or not.
Separately – Even if as Smith claims the docs are still classified – JW V NARA and Crew V Cheney already establish that ex-president may take WH papers with them and keep them Classified or NOT, and that they are that ex-presidents personal propety.
” He also defied the request to hand them back.”
Correct – he refused to give NARA, the FBI, the DOJ HIS PROPERTY, which they were trying to steal.
Form the start – NARA could have gone to court to get a court order to get these documents.
They did not. Why ? Because Clinton apointed Judge ABJ had in 2013 ruled that neither NARA nor the courts have the power to seek WH documents from Ex-presidents. That if they took them with them – they are THEIR PROPERTY.
Instead DOJ tried to get them via subpeona.
But there are two problems with that. Subpeona’s are issued by lawyers in cases. They are not binding in any way that allows sanctions – until a judge rules that they MUST be complied with.
The reason DOJ did not seek to have a judge enforce its subpeona – is because a subpeona is to get evidence NOT to recover property.
You comply with a subpoena by providing the subpoenaing party COPIES of what they asked for.
You can not seize property with a subpoena.
When the House subpeoned the video of Biden’s testimony before Hurr, They were not after the one and only original of that video.
They were asking to be able to USE not OWN the evidence in that video.
“trump admitted he did not declassify the document he took to mar a logo” Please tell us where he “admitted” this.
Yeah, Karen S. Has been watching Fox, taking notes and even picked up a new made up word:”lawfare”.
You are proposing the most bizzare anti-constitutional argument in the world.
That in order to be found innocent you can only use legal arguments you were personally aware of at the moment that you allegedly committed a crime.
The first known use of the word lawfare was in 1976 – probably before you were born.
Regardless there has been a wikipedia page on it from before Trump descended the escalator.
Wikipedia defnines it as follows
“Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual’s usage of their legal rights.”
Wikipedia leans pretty far to the left.
The Trump prosecution is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
—Macbeth, with apologies to William Shakespeare for any liberties taken.
Query: In the foregoing purchased diatribe, did Turley just violate American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 (a), which refers specifically to criticism of judges: “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.”
Turley said: “With the government resting after Cohen’s cross examination, I believe that an honest judge would have no alternative but to grant a motion for a directed verdict and end the case before it goes to the jury. ” The only conclusion any reasonable person could draw from this statement is that Turley is calling Judge Merchan dishonest–that crosses the ethical line.
Turley is entitled to his own opinion–everyone is. Turley could have said: “I believe a directed verdict would have been warranted”–that’s fair commentary. But when a lawyer calls a judge dishonest because he’s a paid pundit who advocates for a litigant, that’s a bridge too far. It the very fact that Turley is using his “law professor” and “George Washington University” credentials to sell this unethical attack on the Judge that violates the Model Rule, and also IMHO, drags George Washington University into a bad light. He uses his position at the University to bolster his bona fides. Free speech is one thing, but for lawyers, freedom of speech not extend to calling a judge dishonest because he didn’t sua sponte grant a directed verdict, espcially when there is more than enough evidence to convict Trump.
Most legal professionals I have heard comment all agree that not only is there a prima facie case, but a strong case. Calling Cohen a liar is irrelevant to whether there’s enough evidence to convict Trump–it’s the jury’s call whether to believe or disbelieve Cohen. And, most of what Cohen said is strongly backed up with documentation authenticated by witnesses, like recordkeepers. Cohen admitted his previous lies and perjury conviction. Turley knows very well that the credibility of Cohen rests with the jury–not a purchased mouthpiece like him. But, accusing the judge of dishonesty is something entirely different. This is the tact used by Fox and other MAGA media, modeling such attacks on Trump, who does the same thing. I believe that a disciplinary investigation is warranted.
?
“more than enough evidence to convict Trump”
of what, exactly?
I may be a slow learner, but I AM a learner. When someone makes a comment like yours, they disclose that they are a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpster. Attempting to explain the case and evidence to you, despite all of the times various other conmmentators have explained the charges and how the evidence supports them in detail, is tilting at windmills. You wouldn’t believe it, you’d call me a liar, you’d argue with me, all because you believe MAGA media, which has indoctrinated you into believing that the case is politically-motivated, all of the witnesses are liars, the documents are fake, Trump didn’t do anything wrong, he’s a victim, the Judge is dishonest, the prosecutor is dishonest, the Judge’s daughter is making money from this case….blah, blah, blah. You are uneducable by design and by choice.
I may be a slow learner, but I AM a learner.
Peter, you are a terrible troll. Heck, you cant even impersonate a bad drag queen with lumpy, imbalanced falsies like Gigi. RuPaul would kick your rear ends (both of them) to the curb.
LOL
fabulous!
You proved his point by the response of yours. Get educated, trump is a world class grifter. I hope you bought your DJT stock. And I hope your sending your hard earned money to trump so he can pay his lawyers.
You proved his point…..
LMAO
For you see, folks, Gigi is not a she but a he, as in Ralph, Bob, bug, Wally, George, Svelaz etc, etc, etc
Dear DNC Troll Farm, your trolls are as believable as Queers for Palestine. Hire some new homos
BugAnon – we can agree that everyone should send money to Trump to pay his lawyers. Money is the fuel that keeps the Trump defense going. Even Mitt Romney should contribute.
DJT opend 3 months ago at 57. It closed today at 53.4. Seems like the IPO cam pretty close to getting the price right.
Further if you bought DJT at the start of this trial – you would have doubled your investment by now.
If this is “grifting” please sir, give me some more.
Separately, you are free to buy a Trump bible or Trump golden sneakers (or a Stormey Daniels patron saint of indictments candle) or not – your choice.
The people who bought DJT stock at 22 are laughing all the way to the bank.
We do not know what the future holds. Maybe you will prove right and they will prove wrong.
But the odds favor them not you.
Joe Biden asks me for money all the time. Is he a grifter too ?
So far in the battle grounds he has outspent Trump 15:1 and he is losing every single battleground.
Gigi, what action is the indictment based on?
Taking care of a bimbo eruption?
It was not a crime when Clinton had an entire War Room devoted to crushing his many bimbo eruptions and rape accusations. In fact, Clinton’s bimbo eruption War Room was run by the now “unbiased journalist” headlining on unbiased fake news ABC. None other than George Stephanopoulos.
But of course none of what Clinton did, with Hillary’s help, was ever considered “a crime.”
Let’s wrap up this election interference fraud fake crime lawfare “show trial” against Trump so the fake news media can focus its attention 24/7 on a real criminal trial: DEMOCRAT SENATOR Gold Bar Menendez.
In my state two judges were collecting kickbacks from private juvenile facilities for each juvenile they sentenced to those facilities.
Would it be a violation of the rules of legal ethics to call those judges dishonest ?
Outside the left and Merchan’s mind there is no law, no legal cannon that can legitimately preclude people from speaking the truth.
Of course there isn’t, and can’t be. The rule Gigi quoted specifically requires that the allegation is false, and that the speaker made it out of “actual malice” (as defined in NY Times v Sullivan).
Calling those judges dishonest would of course not be a factual statement at all, and so would not be actionable. Likewise it would not violate the rule.
Stating what those judges did is a factual statement, so if you named them and it turned out not to be true they could sue you, and if you were a lawyer they could bring action against you under that rule. You could defend yourself in both cases by showing that you had reason to believe it to be true. But merely calling them dishonest wouldn’t even get that far.
It’s in 3rd. person, you or anyone can be interpreted as they like. It is not an accusation.
“The only conclusion any reasonable person could draw from this statement is that Turley is calling Judge Merchan dishonest–that crosses the ethical line.”
No, the only conclusion that any reasonable person could draw is that the matter is undecided. Since you don’t, and can’t, know what Merchan will do you can’t logically draw the inference that he is being accused of being dishonest.
You’re retarded.
He says an honest judge will grant the motion. If Merchan does not, at that time then you can blame Turley for calling him dishonest. Maybe Merchan will indeed turn out to be honest.
Try to pay attention–Turley said that when the prosecutor rested, at THAT point Merchan should have dismissed. Turley DID call the judge dishonest by claiming that an honest judge would have dismissed when the prosecutor rested. That’s a disciplinary violation, IMHO.
There is no prohibition in the law or cannon of legal ethics for speaking the truth.
Gigi – please take a course in critical thinking and logic.
“With the government resting after Cohen’s cross examination, I believe that an honest judge would have no alternative but to grant a motion for a directed verdict and end the case before it goes to the jury. ”
That is a perfectly correct statement. It can be made by any lawyer. It will very shortly be made By Trump’s lawyers in front of Merchan.
Judges are required – by the same legal and ethical standards to dismiss cases where the prosecution has not presented evidence of every element of every count of every crime. This is not unusual. Mueller had several cases in NY dismissed because he failed to provide ANY evidence of several crimes in his charges. The judge told him to put up or shut up. Mueller with drew the cases.
That occurred BEFORE jury selection. Merchan should have demanded that Bragg prove that he had SOME evidence of every charge BEFORE the trial began. Here we are 15 days in, the prosecution has rested, and we have lots of evidence that never should have been let in.
The jury has heard allegations of crimes that are not charged.
But no actual evidence of any crimes charged has been presented. In fact multiple prosecution witnesses have testified that payments for NDAs ARE legal expenses.
The gist of this case is that Payments to lawyers that include the money that a party to a Settlement receives are NOT legal expenses.
That is an OPINION – not a statement of law or fact. The IRS(and the state) as an example does not care what you call expenses – so long as you do not claim that something that is not an expense is. They do not care at all if you call something that is an expense NOT an expense.
You are allowed to screw yourself.
What should be self evident – even to someone as illogical as you, is that accounting is the process categorizing financial transactions for the purpose of determining the health of the business – and separately for the purpose of accurately determining taxes.
The fundimentals date back to the 1600’s
Double entry accounting – the system that dates to the 1600’s requires that every transaction has TWO sides a debit and a credit.
Because every transaction takes money and moves it from one catagory to another.
If you pay someone you take money from your bank and you give it to that person. Debit and Credit.
All Debits and Credits divide into 5 catagories. Assets, Liabilities, Capital and Revenue and Expenses.
That is the minimum required for a functional accounting system. That is also the minimum required to meet government tax reporting – so long as the catagorization of each transaction into A L C R or E is correct. The IRS does not go after people for misposting an expense into the wrong sub catagory.
But Businesses for their own purposes always divide A L C R and E into sub catagories. These have to do with the managment of the business, Not the law. For a Publicly traded business there are moderately strict rules regarding sub catagories – because all shareholders are Entitled to the Balance sheet(reporting A, L C) and the P&L reporting R and E,
There are no such requirements for privately held businesses.
I have run the finances of many business – my own, family businesses, partnerships, etc for 50+ years.
The typical chart of accounts for a small -medium business has about 100 sub categories. These are chosen by the business owners.
There is are a couple of standards that many businesses follow FASB being one these provide dramatically more sub catagories, but even so the typical business rarely sues more than about 100.
There is a reason for this – the purpose of the sub catagories is to allow managers to manage the business.
If you are the CEO of a company (or a shareholder in a public company), You do not need to know the amount spent on Pizza as opposed to soda for business sponsored employee events.
Witnesses testified that Trump Organization checks needed one signature under 10,000 and two signatures over 10,000
This is an example of categorization and the purpose is to avoid inundating business managers with extraneous information.
Business reports – especially for non-public businesses are kept to 2-3 pages at most. Because someone owning a multi-million dollar business does not have the time to review expenditures in thousands of categories.
That is going to be true of privately held businesses no matter what the scale.
Left wing nuts tend to not understand this – but one of the strengths of the free market is NOT that it is perfect, but that it is efficient.
I own apartments. When I have one for rent, my goal is to rent the apartment as quickly as possible to a tenant that is GOOD ENOUGH.
I do not spend hours reviewing every application – that is inefficient. I do not need the BEST tenant, I need a GOOD ENOUGH tenant.
Everything in the real world and free markets works that way.
Businesses thrive not by making perfect decisions – but by making good enough decisions quickly and efficiently
This is one of the reasons why government intrusion is ALWAYS harmful. Government is NOT about efficiency. Nor is government actually about the ants and needs of people – that is the purpose of markets not government. Government is about preserving the minimum of order necescary to preclude anarchy. Free markets will manage the rest.
The point is that every single transaction – every check, every expense is going to be catagorized by a business.
Catagorized means GROUPED.
One of the mistakes You and Brag are making is failing to grasp that the purpose of catagorization – grouping is to sort transactions into abotu 100 different groups – keeping things that are similar together.
It is NOT to describe in detail each individual transaction.
The manages of a business do nto want to see the details of every transaction every time they run a P&L.
Legal expenses is the correct catagory for anything paid to lawyers.
I would further venture that the FASB which provides thousands of codes/groups/catagories, does not have one for “NDA’s with porn stars.
Query: In the foregoing purchased diatribe, did Turley just violate American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 (a),
No, he didn’t.
which refers specifically to criticism of judges:
No, it doesn’t.
“A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.”
Read those words. What does it say? It forbids only false factual statements, not opinions. Even if Mr Turley had actually called Marchan dishonest, which he didn’t, that would be 100% ethical, and protected speech, because it’s an opinion. Just as Marchan could not sue him for defamation, because opinions are not actionable, he could also not bring an action under this rule. And that would apply even if the opinion were incorrect, which it isn’t. Merchan very likely is dishonest, and lawyers are just as entitled as the rest of us to say so.