Reality Check said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen says he believed that Keith Davidson's side had leaked the story about Karen McDougal.
Davidson issued a statement denying the story. "That was the way he was going to appease me. More importantly, to appease Mr. Trump," Cohen says.
Davidson was the former attorney of Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen had several calls with Dylan Howard of the National Enquirer that evening.
He says he "was expressing to him in a rather angry manner" that Karen McDougal was now part of his team and "you need to get ahold of this" and also issue denials.

---

Quote:

---

The court is taking a short break. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger said her direct examination would go into tomorrow.

---

Tomorrow? Really going to stretch this one out.

---

And the more they talk about it broadens the target for cross

Give them an extra shovel and chant "dig mutherf***er dig"

---

And the longer it goes, the less time they have to cross on Tuesday. That gives them all day Wednesday to slow down and review the details and come back on Thursday and really go after him.

---

They're off Wednesday and no court Thursday/Friday for Barton's graduation.

---

Wow, they're really already off for Wednesday-Friday? If they can time it correctly, the defense has a golden opportunity to end their cross (or at least part of their cross) on a high note that the jurors will be thinking over for 5 days.

Quote:

---

They're off Wednesday and no court Thursday/Friday for Barton's graduation.

---

Barron's graduation is on the 15th? No trial on Friday either?

Let me just say for a witness to have such a long time between original and then continuing one's testimony is very difficult for the witness. It's great for attorneys doing cross.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They're off Wednesday and no court Thursday/Friday for Barton's graduation.

---

Barron's graduation is on the 15th? No trial on Friday either?

Let me just say for a witness to have such a long time between original and then continuing one's testimony is very difficult for the witness. It's great for attorneys doing cross.

---

I think the graduation is on the 17th, so Friday. Open question it seems if there will by anything onThursday.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They're off Wednesday and no court Thursday/Friday for Barton's graduation.

---

Barron's graduation is on the 15th? No trial on Friday either?

Let me just say for a witness to have such a long time between original and then continuing one's testimony is very difficult for the witness. It's great for attorneys doing cross.

---

I think the graduation is on the 17th, so Friday. Open question it seems if there will by anything onThursday.

---

Some goofy scheduling. Really feel sorry for the jurors with all of this start and stop in court sessions.

Do most trials that span several weeks have recurring days off within Monday-Friday?

Edit: That feels like it would seriously mess with the pacing of the trial as we've already seen so far.

SwigAg11 said:

---

Do most trials that span several weeks have recurring days off within Monday-Friday?

---

Usually the judge has a day to handle other matters. Usually Monday thru Thursday with Friday being the judge's day for other matters. But again that depends on what else is on the judge's docket.

Shining a light on the DOJ shenanigans and skulduggery......

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3001776/pressure-builds-doj-answer-if-collusion-marred-trump-hush-money-case/

Quote:

---

Pressure builds on DOJ to answer if 'collusion' marred Trump hush money case
By Kaelan Deese May 13, 2024 2:23 pm

Pressure is building on the Biden administration to put up records that may "indicate collusion" between the Justice Department and state prosecutors in the hush money case against former President Donald Trump in Manhattan, with several Republicans at various levels of government seeking documents, including through a new investigation launched by West Virginia on Monday.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a Trump ally, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on Monday to the DOJ asking it to produce documents concerning an ex-DOJ employee's transition to employment by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which is prosecuting Trump in the 34-count hush money case.

"We need to get to the bottom of this political prosecution of a former president who is on track to defeat the incumbent in November," Morrisey said in a statement to the Washington Examiner, referring to the other three indictments Trump faces as he seeks another run for the presidency.

Morrisey said he believes the alleged collusion is demonstrated in part by the move of the third-highest ranking DOJ official, Matthew Colangelo, to the district attorney's office to help prosecute the criminal case, New York v. Trump, according to a letter he penned to Attorney General Merrick Garland. The West Virginia attorney general also noted Colangelo was "paid thousands of dollars by the Democratic National Committee."

"The timing on these cases is suspect, to say the least the integrity of our country's election process is at stake," Morrisey said. His new FOIA request falls on the same day the Trump hush money trial entered its 16th day of witness testimony, featuring testimony from star witness Michael Cohen.......
...

---

Good luck with that. DOJ will just ignore that FOIA request.

Give me another example of someone leaving that high a post in the DOJ for an assistant DA position. I doubt it exists.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen says he believed that Keith Davidson's side had leaked the story about Karen McDougal.
Davidson issued a statement denying the story. "That was the way he was going to appease me. More importantly, to appease Mr. Trump," Cohen says.
Davidson was the former attorney of Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen had several calls with Dylan Howard of the National Enquirer that evening.
He says he "was expressing to him in a rather angry manner" that Karen McDougal was now part of his team and "you need to get ahold of this" and also issue denials.

---

Quote:

---

The court is taking a short break. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger said her direct examination would go into tomorrow.

---

Tomorrow? Really going to stretch this one out.

---

Lots of questions left..."Mr. Cohen, please show us on this doll where the mean Mr. Trump has hurt you"

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

Give me another example of someone leaving that high a post in the DOJ for an assistant DA position. I doubt it exists.

---

And of course, this guy was also employed in Georgia to work on that case.

Remember, this is CNN.

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen took the stand on Monday in Donald Trump's hush money trial in New York.
When he was Trump's personal attorney, Cohen made the $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. He landed in federal prison over that transaction for breaking campaign finance laws.
Through previous witnesses' testimony, jurors have already heard plenty about Cohen. They have painted an unflattering portrait of an aggressive, impulsive and unlikeable attorney. The former "fixer," now a critical witness, testified about the payment and Trump's alleged involvement.
Here's a look at what Cohen said on the stand today:

• Relationship with Trump: Cohen said he worked directly for Trump, not the general counsel's office at the Trump Organization. He said working with the press was a "portion" of his job and would sometimes call news outlets and ask them to redact or take articles down. Cohen testified that it was required for him to keep Trump updated about his work.
• On the presidential run: Cohen said Trump was worried about stories about his personal life coming out as he weighed a run for president, with Trump saying, "Just be prepared there's going to be a lot of women coming forward," according to Cohen. He testified that he didn't have a formal role in the 2016 campaign, but he used his press contacts to be a surrogate.
• The doorman story: Cohen said he learned about the doorman story circulating about Trump having fathered "a love child" and testified Trump told him to "handle it." He confirmed that the strategy was to take the story "off the market" for $30,000, and Trump was grateful it wouldn't be published. Cohen said he went to Trump to tell him the agreement was completed, as well as to get credit for executing it.
• Karen McDougal: He said Trump told him to make sure the story about former Playboy model Karen McDougal didn't get released, which he believed meant acquiring it. Cohen recounted a call with Pecker and Trump about the story. When Cohen told Trump the cost of controlling the McDougal story, Cohen testified Trump said, "No problem, I'll take care of it." Later, David Pecker, former CEO of the National Enquirer's parent company, spoke to Cohen and insisted on being reimbursed.
• "Access Hollywood" tape: When he learned about the video, released by the Washington Post, Cohen said he wanted to "ensure" things were being taken care of properly and that Trump would be protected. He testified that it was Melania Trump's idea to say the language in the video "was locker room talk." Cohen recalled thinking the tape would impact women voters.
• Stormy Daniels: When he initially told Trump about the Stormy Daniels story, Cohen testified that Trump said, "Women are going to hate me" and that it would be "a disaster for the campaign." Cohen said his former boss told him to work with Pecker to "take care of it." As the agreement unfolded, Cohen said he kept Trump informed on the deal with Daniels.
• Timing of Daniel's payment: Trump wanted the situation with Daniels to be under wraps until after the election "because if I win, it will have no relevance because I'm president. And if I lose, I don't even care," Trump said, according to Cohen.
• Making the payment: Cohen said he spoke with Trump twice to get his sign-off before making the payment to Daniels using a company he created, Essential Consultants LLC. He said he would have never gone forward to the bank without Trump's approval. He testified he also let Trump know he signed the agreement with Daniels.
• Repayment to Cohen: Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg told Cohen he would be paid $420,000 for Daniel's payment over 12 months. He testified that the payment series set up for future legal services was actually a reimbursement.

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen says he believed that Keith Davidson's side had leaked the story about Karen McDougal.
Davidson issued a statement denying the story. "That was the way he was going to appease me. More importantly, to appease Mr. Trump," Cohen says.
Davidson was the former attorney of Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen had several calls with Dylan Howard of the National Enquirer that evening.
He says he "was expressing to him in a rather angry manner" that Karen McDougal was now part of his team and "you need to get ahold of this" and also issue denials.

---

Quote:

---

The court is taking a short break. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger said her direct examination would go into tomorrow.

---

Tomorrow? Really going to stretch this one out.

---

And the more they talk about it broadens the target for cross

Give them an extra shovel and chant "dig mutherf***er dig"

---

And the longer it goes, the less time they have to cross on Tuesday. That gives them all day Wednesday to slow down and review the details and come back on Thursday and really go after him.

---

They're off Wednesday and no court Thursday/Friday for Barton's graduation.

---

Wow, they're really already off for Wednesday-Friday? If they can time it correctly, the defense has a golden opportunity to end their cross (or at least part of their cross) on a high note that the jurors will be thinking over for 5 days.

---

Court is in session on Thursday

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They're off Wednesday and no court Thursday/Friday for Barton's graduation.

---

Barron's graduation is on the 15th? No trial on Friday either?

Let me just say for a witness to have such a long time between original and then continuing one's testimony is very difficult for the witness. It's great for attorneys doing cross.

---

They're always off Wednesday when Merchan is a judge in the other court. So no trial on the 15th. The graduation is Friday, May 17th. They will be in session on Thursday per the judge's last announcement.

There is a real chance Cohen might not be done by close of business Thursday. But even if he is, there is supposed to be another witness after him?

Did they say two more on Friday?

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone to come down from the craziness of his testimony.

Gouveia about to go live.

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen says he believed that Keith Davidson's side had leaked the story about Karen McDougal.
Davidson issued a statement denying the story. "That was the way he was going to appease me. More importantly, to appease Mr. Trump," Cohen says.
Davidson was the former attorney of Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen had several calls with Dylan Howard of the National Enquirer that evening.
He says he "was expressing to him in a rather angry manner" that Karen McDougal was now part of his team and "you need to get ahold of this" and also issue denials.

---

Quote:

---

The court is taking a short break. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger said her direct examination would go into tomorrow.

---

Tomorrow? Really going to stretch this one out.

---

And the more they talk about it broadens the target for cross

Give them an extra shovel and chant "dig mutherf***er dig"

---

And the longer it goes, the less time they have to cross on Tuesday. That gives them all day Wednesday to slow down and review the details and come back on Thursday and really go after him.

---

Made that same mistake with Stormy. This prosecution team does not think strategically, at all.

---

Do you need a strategy when the judge is on your side?

Quote:

---

Do you need a strategy when the judge is on your side?

---

Yes because this is more about leaving impressions with the jury over a weekend or extended time.

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Which portion of evidence was about the tax theory?

My undergrad degree is finance, so I border on knowing just enough accounting to be dangerous.

How does GAAP say to classify payments for an NDA? I have a hard time seeing how classifying them as a legal expense amounts to fraud.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Now way they put an expert on campaign finance theory on. They entire prosecution centers around not actually defining the charges against Trump. Bringing in an expert allows the defense to show that there was no federal crime prosecuted and so no underlying charge here on which this entire case rests.

I also hate to ask this now, but who is Keith Schiller (the bodyguard) in all of this mess?

AgLiving06 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Now way they put an expert on campaign finance theory on. They entire prosecution centers around not actually defining the charges against Trump. Bringing in an expert allows the defense to show that there was no federal crime prosecuted and so no underlying charge here on which this entire case rests.

---

It also opens up a rebuttal expert for the defense which the judge to date has prohibited.

I hope the prosecution does try to get some campaign finance witness in. That would open the door for Bradley Smith's full testimony as Merchan would have to amend his earlier order barring him from testifying as to the merits such a claim in this case.

Is the prosecution that dumb? Or do they just not care whether any conviction stands on appeal?

VegasAg86 said:

---

My undergrad degree is finance, so I border on knowing just enough accounting to be dangerous.

How does GAAP say to classify payments for an NDA? I have a hard time seeing how classifying them as a legal expense amounts to fraud.

---

It wouldn't. Not to mention, in an organization this size, these are immaterial peanut $$$s.

AgLiving06 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Now way they put an expert on campaign finance theory on. They entire prosecution centers around not actually defining the charges against Trump. Bringing in an expert allows the defense to show that there was no federal crime prosecuted and so no underlying charge here on which this entire case rests.

---

No, that's not coming in under any circumstances. That's already, independently, been ruled irrelevant by the Judge.

A State campaign finance witness who testifies generally about the outlines of campaign finance would not open the door to the defendant's campaign finance witness (Bradley Smith) being allowed to become a fact witness or apply the facts of this case.

We'll see. Its a guess. If Schiller knows something important, than it'll be him that they bring in to wrap things up but I'm just guessing they wrap things up with a non-hostile witness.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Now way they put an expert on campaign finance theory on. They entire prosecution centers around not actually defining the charges against Trump. Bringing in an expert allows the defense to show that there was no federal crime prosecuted and so no underlying charge here on which this entire case rests.

---

No, that's not coming in under any circumstances. That's already, independently, been ruled irrelevant by the Judge.

A State campaign finance witness who testifies generally about the outlines of campaign finance would not open the door to the defendant's campaign finance witness (Bradley Smith) being allowed to become a fact witness or apply the facts of this case.

We'll see. Its a guess. If Schiller knows something important, than it'll be him that they bring in to wrap things up but I'm just guessing they wrap things up with a non-hostile witness.

---

They would be able to find a state level witness to rebut the testimony. The judge can't stop it. He may be able to prevent a federal level expert in Smith, but that is a very fine line he is dancing.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Now way they put an expert on campaign finance theory on. They entire prosecution centers around not actually defining the charges against Trump. Bringing in an expert allows the defense to show that there was no federal crime prosecuted and so no underlying charge here on which this entire case rests.

---

It also opens up a rebuttal expert for the defense which the judge to date has prohibited.

---

To be clear, Bradley Smith wasn't prohibited from testifying.

Trump's team did not designate him as an expert witness. They designated him as a fact witness. The Judge ruled he is actually an expert witness and limited what he can talk about.

A State witness can testify within those same bounds without opening anything up.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Now way they put an expert on campaign finance theory on. They entire prosecution centers around not actually defining the charges against Trump. Bringing in an expert allows the defense to show that there was no federal crime prosecuted and so no underlying charge here on which this entire case rests.

---

No, that's not coming in under any circumstances. That's already, independently, been ruled irrelevant by the Judge.

A State campaign finance witness who testifies generally about the outlines of campaign finance would not open the door to the defendant's campaign finance witness (Bradley Smith) being allowed to become a fact witness or apply the facts of this case.

We'll see. Its a guess. If Schiller knows something important, than it'll be him that they bring in to wrap things up but I'm just guessing they wrap things up with a non-hostile witness.

---

They would be able to find a state level witness to rebut the testimony. The judge can't stop it. He may be able to prevent a federal level expert in Smith, but that is a very fine line he is dancing.

---

What do you mean "state level witness?"

When I say "State campaign finance witness" I mean a campaign finance witness for the Prosecution.

We'll see. Just trying to guess who it could be if there is really just one last witness

Cohen actually testified that his plan was to "monetize my access" were he Personal Counsel to POTUS Trump in an email to his daughter, a student at UPenn at the time.

He admitted that like it was no big deal at all. (Watching the Gouveia stream reading the tweets from Inner City Press.) Just insane he would ever put that in writing in an email but just passing it off as a nothing burger?

So how many other people had he been charging people for access to Trump or Cohen's lobbying Trump on their behalf before Trump ran for President? Playing both sides against the middle?

Scummy, scummy guy.

SwigAg11 said:

---

I also hate to ask this now, but who is Keith Schiller (the bodyguard) in all of this mess?

---

He sounds like he's basically been standing next to Trump for the last 2 decades. He answered phone calls that hvae come up in this case, he handled documents that have come up in this case, he apparently is the one who approached Daniels and invited her to dinner with Trump (not really important to the case), and just seemed to be "around" a lot of what other witnesses have talked about.

I don't know if you close with him unless he's carrying a smoking gun we don't know about.

Cohen testified at length that he hoped he could use the role to launch a consulting gig.

People market their White House experience or connections all the time to launch and support consulting gigs. Some on the up and up, some maybe not.