GUILTY NY - Ex-President Donald Trump, charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #3

[RANCH]

It’s obvious to me that he isn’t credible and can’t be trusted.

I wonder why they couldn’t find someone to corroborate this liar’s testimony.

I believe the reason why there wasn't any witness to corroborate Cohen's testimony is because Cohen lied on the stand in this trial like he has done in prior sworn testimony.

JMO.

 

[Lilibet]

I believe the reason why there wasn't any witness to corroborate Cohen's testimony is because Cohen lied on the stand in this trial like he has done in prior sworn testimony.

JMO.

They could have brought in Weisselberg from Rikers where he is serving time for perjury, but they do have his notes. And, of course, cross-examination would have been risky.
JMO

https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/0...dvertiser censored*-star-hush-money-payments/

Jurors saw handwritten notes from Weisselberg detailing plans to get the money back to Cohen. This was the second time the jury has seen the notes, as Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization’s longtime controller, testified to them on May 6.

Just before the court broke for the day, Cohen testified that he and Weisselberg went to Trump’s 26th-floor office when Trump was president-elect and received Trump’s approval for the reimbursement plan, according to reporters in the courthouse. Cohen said Weisselberg had instructed him to submit a series of invoices over 12 months and to label them “legal services rendered.”

 

[Izzylizzy]

I am not seeing the jury believing that Cohen was paid $36,000 an hour for the 10 hours legitimate work that Cohen did for trump, plus a $60,000 bonus.

Or that he was paid $35,000 a month on retainer, when there is no retainer agreement. Plus a $60,000 bonus.

imo

Plus another 130,000 to pay the taxes on the 130,000 Cohen paid Stormy from a homeowner's loan which Trump paid back to Cohen as income.
One of the last things Trump is known for is being generous just because.

 

[Joe Friday]

So far 36 voters find that Ex-President Trump is guilty, while only 7 believe he is not not-guilty.

Guilty - All counts Votes: 29 67.4% \

Guilty - Some counts Votes: 7 16.3%

Not Guilty - All counts Votes: 7 16.3%


If you haven't voted please do so at the link below.

Poll - Is Ex-President Donald Trump, Guilty or Not Guilty of 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records

 

[Izzylizzy]

Well that settles that and a big win for prosecutors.

'Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed'

''The issue is central to the prosecution's effort to convict him of felony-level falsification of business records.''

'Prosecutors initially laid out four possible predicate crimes, one of which the judge ruled out before trial. The remaining possibilities are a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.

Defense lawyer Emil Bove argued that jurors should have to agree on a single predicate offense. But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the law doesn't require that.

“The importance of the case is not a basis for deviating from the standard application of the law,” Colangelo said. “There’s no reason to rewrite the law for this case.”

Merchan agreed with the prosecution and said he won't impose the requirement the defense requested.'

:
cont
https://www.politico.com/live-updat...nanimity-needed-for-predicate-crimes-00159225

 

[Izzylizzy]

An attorney who once represented Michael Cohen testified Monday that Donald Trump’s fixer-turned-foe had told him the ex-president “knew nothing” about the hush money payment to *advertiser censored* star Stormy Daniels — moments before irking the judge by rolling his eyes and muttering on the stand.

Robert “Bob” Costello, the second witness called by Trump’s lawyers at his Manhattan criminal trial, contradicted previous testimony by Cohen that the real estate mogul was aware of the deal to pay Daniels $130,000 to silence her story about having a tryst with him.

“Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times,” claimed Costello, a Trump ally who last week bashed the prosecution’s case in front of Congress.

Michael Cohen’s ex-attorney contradicts Trump ‘fixer’s testimony, gets ripped by judge in fiery scene at hush money trial

“Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times,” Costello testified.

nypost.com

Trump had sent Costello, his only defense witness, to the Grand Jury with his same Cohen is a liar story hoping it would convince the jurors not to indict him.
It was so ridiculous that the prosecution didn't even need Cohen to come back for a rebuttal.

From the get-go Cohen did not trust Costello, Costello's partner and Giuliani from repeating everything he said going straight to Trump.
Not only that at the time Cohen and Trump were in a "joint defense" agreement.
Cohen remained the lying protecting stooge for Trump, until he didn't.
The legal consensus is that it was Trump who insisted Costello be called which had to have been against his legal team advice knowing his GJ testimony and what his so-called evidence against Cohen was.

Costello was not only an arrogant humiliating disgrace on the stand he was the gift that just kept giving to prosecutors.


Vide
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwi5t7yo2qaGAxXMF1kFHZCND8EQs6gLegQICBAB
Trump's joint defense agreement with Cohen ending: report

The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 3951...




Jul 2, 2018 — The joint agreement allowed Cohen's and Trump's lawyers to share information with one another, but when Guy Petrillo becomes Cohen's new head ...

 

[musicaljoke]

Well that settles that and a big win for prosecutors.

'Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed'

''The issue is central to the prosecution's effort to convict him of felony-level falsification of business records.''

'Prosecutors initially laid out four possible predicate crimes, one of which the judge ruled out before trial. The remaining possibilities are a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.

Defense lawyer Emil Bove argued that jurors should have to agree on a single predicate offense. But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the law doesn't require that.

“The importance of the case is not a basis for deviating from the standard application of the law,” Colangelo said. “There’s no reason to rewrite the law for this case.”

Merchan agreed with the prosecution and said he won't impose the requirement the defense requested.'

:
cont
https://www.politico.com/live-updat...nanimity-needed-for-predicate-crimes-00159225

It's not a big win for prosecutors, nor the defence. It's a big nothing burger. How would the jury even know where Trump got the money? Predicate crimes are not part of the trial. So of course they aren't going to rule on it.

Sheesh! Everyone on both legal teams knows this. Is somebody trying to make it seem like a sneaky little loophole? That person brings shame upon the legal profession and is an idjut.

 

[Izzylizzy]

It's not a big win for prosecutors, nor the defence. It's a big nothing burger. How would the jury even know where Trump got the money? Predicate crimes are not part of the trial. So of course they aren't going to rule on it.

Sheesh! Everyone on both legal teams knows this. Is somebody trying to make it seem like a sneaky little loophole? That person brings shame upon the legal profession and is an idjut.

Huh?
Judge Merchan did rule on it and Bove was not happy with the ruling and made no mention that they were not part of the trial.
The 3 predicate crimes are the "2nd crimes" that if found guilty of would make the felony conviction.

'Defense lawyer Emil Bove argued that jurors should have to agree on a single predicate offense. But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the law doesn't require that.'

 

[SouthAussie]

It's not a big win for prosecutors, nor the defence. It's a big nothing burger. How would the jury even know where Trump got the money? Predicate crimes are not part of the trial. So of course they aren't going to rule on it.

Sheesh! Everyone on both legal teams knows this. Is somebody trying to make it seem like a sneaky little loophole? That person brings shame upon the legal profession and is an idjut.

My understanding is that the predicate crimes are:
tax fraud
state election violation
federal election violation

If the jury agree that trump falsified business records, they do not have to agree on why. Some can think it was for tax reasons, some can believe it was for election reasons, and that is okay. It was a felony.

If they believe it was ONLY to save poor Melania's feelings, prior to the election, I think it would remain a misdemeanor.

imo only

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

My understanding is that the predicate crimes are:
tax fraud
state election violation
federal election violation

If the jury agree that trump falsified business records, they do not have to agree on why. Some can think it was for tax reasons, some can believe it was for election reasons, and that is okay. It was a felony.

If they believe it was ONLY to save poor Melania's feelings, prior to the election, I think it would remain a misdemeanor.

imo only

That’s their three theories that haven’t been proven. As I understand it they don’t need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like i said before, it’s like throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks.

The judge wouldn’t allow testimony from the head of the FEC. I find that fascinating. He showed his bias throughout the trial. imo He let stormy go on and on about things that weren’t relevant to the case. Yet at every turn he tried to shut Costello down on facts relevant to the case. It’s no wonder he rolled his eyes. imo

 

[SouthAussie]

The judge wouldn’t allow testimony from the head of the FEC.

"Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue."

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Trump had sent Costello, his only defense witness, to the Grand Jury with his same Cohen is a liar story hoping it would convince the jurors not to indict him.
It was so ridiculous that the prosecution didn't even need Cohen to come back for a rebuttal.

From the get-go Cohen did not trust Costello, Costello's partner and Giuliani from repeating everything he said going straight to Trump.
Not only that at the time Cohen and Trump were in a "joint defense" agreement.
Cohen remained the lying protecting stooge for Trump, until he didn't.
The legal consensus is that it was Trump who insisted Costello be called which had to have been against his legal team advice knowing his GJ testimony and what his so-called evidence against Cohen was.

Costello was not only an arrogant humiliating disgrace on the stand he was the gift that just kept giving to prosecutors.

Vide
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=832bfc491017b489&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CAEVJI_enUS1041US1041&sxsrf=ADLYWILY7nT81-gyzQfW-fsgNiq0pty2Jw:1716568053467&q=cohen+and+trump+had+a+mutual++defense+agreement&uds=ADvngMju_xr2zTHFJZNJQqE9LfUeJjMopHfJ-laYufwcyggVPq0PrTfTR8qWOKlVRiibPjy6z0t_KRBhc3QMAiHs--FE-zpw2JYEOwKIsJPgEbuH-55PN6TDo-40GHoaq_QJQdpND7hYaiHPc5rtWr1Ex6OJfK119zsNCqNXRJ1H2r7Ka_HW_uNN03lVw34kdPcFZOx7og6adMzS8J5XmWbVNatbhDbjdmv1lPZCH4x-uQxtAdTqznK-nWZlMCdkTVoY3a75I1E24r2yPtAW6DzKIxon_K5OwHSlKUsf4CVmAAdQFh-Hu7Yp-3ZKNlggPRzGu507XOnWE21Fr7gpeaX8KMofjojUYCJIkMurQwsdEro-2IRWeZhW0&udm=18&prmd=nvisbmt&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5t7yo2qaGAxXMF1kFHZCND8EQs6gLegQICBAB
Trump's joint defense agreement with Cohen ending: report
The Hill
https://thehill.com › homenews › administration › 3951...




Jul 2, 2018 — The joint agreement allowed Cohen's and Trump's lawyers to share information with one another, but when Guy Petrillo becomes Cohen's new head ...

I can’t believe anything that comes from Cohen. Maybe he lied to Costello for the reason you stated but who knows. Costello was believable.

“A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself look like falsehood”.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus​

 

[Bounceycat]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

By that standard, you should believe nothing out of Trump's mouth, either.

 

[MyBelle]

"Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue."

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

ITA. Smith's suggestion he is more of a legal expert than Alvin Bragg is laughably absurd. Trump DID influence an election through 'unlawful means' and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.

JMO

Former FEC chairman defends Donald Trump: Alvin Bragg is "wrong"

Bradley Smith told Newsweek why he decided to become an expert witness for the former president.

www.newsweek.com

In a post to X (formerly Twitter), Smith wrote that Bragg's theory "hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.'

 

[MyBelle]

I can’t believe anything that comes from Cohen. Maybe he lied to Costello for the reason you stated but who knows. Costello was believable.

“A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself look like falsehood”.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus​

I believe the jury did notice Costello's attitude and contempt for the Judge.

JMO

How Robert Costello’s defense testimony could actually hurt Trump’s case

Typically, parties in litigation will call witnesses to testify at trial who are good for them. It’s unclear whether that happened with Donald Trump’s criminal defense.

www.msnbc.com

More than anything, Costello’s trial testimony may be remembered for his misbehavior that caused Judge Juan Merchan to clear the courtroom — not a normal thing to happen at trial — and call the witness contemptuous for rolling his eyes and mouthing off. It’s fair to say that a witness with that temperament might not help the party that called him.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

That’s their three theories that haven’t been proven. As I understand it they don’t need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like i said before, it’s like throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks.

The judge wouldn’t allow testimony from the head of the FEC. I find that fascinating. He showed his bias throughout the trial. imo He let stormy go on and on about things that weren’t relevant to the case. Yet at every turn he tried to shut Costello down on facts relevant to the case. It’s no wonder he rolled his eyes. imo

As I understand it, under NY law the underlying crime does not have to be proven at all. I may be wrong on this.

Trump's lawyers could have objected to Stormy's testimony, yet they did not. Even the judge wondered why not. He's the judge--he can't be expected to do the defense's work for them.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/politics/judge-merchan-calls-out-trump-attorneys-mistrial/index.html

 

[Izzylizzy]

I can’t believe anything that comes from Cohen. Maybe he lied to Costello for the reason you stated but who knows. Costello was believable.

“A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself look like falsehood”.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus​

Costello's emails proved otherwise, he was far from believable as shown by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger who was brilliant.

 

[MyBelle]

Costello's emails proved otherwise, he was far from believable as shown by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger who was brilliant.

I am impressed with the prosecutors and the Judge. Very professional.

I wonder how the jury feels about the defendant cheating on his wife shortly after the birth of their son. I could never vote for any candidate--male or female--who cheats on taxes, business expenses, tells lies and when caught, continues to lie.

JMO

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I am impressed with the prosecutors and the Judge. Very professional.

I wonder how the jury feels about the defendant cheating on his wife shortly after the birth of their son. I could never vote for any candidate--male or female--who cheats on taxes, business expenses, tells lies and when caught, continues to lie.

JMO

I think early on the judge ruled that Melania's status as new mother at the time could not be brought up at trial as it would be too prejudicial.

This is just what I remember so I may be wrong.

In any case I am pretty sure him cheating on his wife shortly after the birth of their son was not broached at trial.

 

[MyBelle]

I think early on the judge ruled that Melania's status as new mother at the time could not be brought up at trial as it would be too prejudicial.

This is just what I remember so I may be wrong.

In any case I am pretty sure him cheating on his wife shortly after the birth of their son was not broached at trial.

Ok, thanks for that info! Although I'm betting the jury figured out the dates in their heads when Stormy testified.

JMO