Quote:

---

Can the defense use that when they present thier case?

---

You mean the defense tries to subpoena Bill Maher/HBO for the tape of that interview from 2018? Suppose they could. Would need a foundational witness but collateral attacks (after the witness is no longer on the stand) on a prior witness' credibility gets tricky. Doubt Merchan would allow it, then again if he sees the clip, he might allow it.

Her testimony about blacking out, feeling like she was drugged, gaps in her memory, etc. she directly refuted in her description of the encounter to Maher in 2018.

The fact that we are even discussing this shows how far off of the rails this trial has gone.

I am definitely not a criminal attorney. Is it possible the defense calls Stormy to get into some of that stuff?

agAngeldad said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Hawg,

Driving home, the talk radio had some lawyer from Houston on. Don't remember his name,but seemed to be pretty high level.

He said that the defense should have asked specifically to Stormy questions related to the actual crimes being charged by the prosecution. Get her on the record stating that she has no info on any relevant facts of the case. Then, ask her if the defense knew she knew nothing about actual facts dealing with the actual charges.

Let the jury know that she was only there to defame Trump and add no actual facts to the case.

What are your thoughts on that?

---

Necheles did ask her if she had any knowledge about the business records involved in this case and she said she did not.

But asking her if she thought the prosecutors knew she had no relevant knowledge calls for speculation or even hearsay. David Pecker and Keith Davidson would have no reason nor ability to know about internal record keeping at the Trump Org. Such knowledge is not a requirement for a witness who otherwise has some relevant knowledge.

But the more important factors regarding Stormy the defense extracted from her were her financial benefit from being a witness and personal animus towards Trump. Much more material as to her credibility, along with her prior inconsistent statements.

Defense was forced to play cards Merchan had dealt them with allowing the prosecution to ask about the details of her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. The judge set that table.

So that particular criticism of the defense team misses the mark, in my view.

---

Did you the video clip of Stormy interview with ??? saying that Trump did not rape her, assault her etc? Did the Defense use that clip?

---

I assume the defense will recall Stormy and Cohen when they prosecution rests. They have all day today, Friday and the weekend to prep.

BourbonAg said:

---

I am definitely not a criminal attorney. Is it possible the defense calls Stormy to get into some of that stuff?

---

They would have to subpoena her but it would likely be quashed by Merchan. And that would be a justifiable decsion since they had ample opportunity to cross her. Not worth the bang for the buck in my view.

Here is where the case stands. Prosecution has told the court Cohen is their final witness. He is currently on cross to continue on Thursday. Blanche has informed the court his cross might be finished by the close of business on Thursday but he might not be.

Court is dark on Friday. So that means Cohen will be back on the stand on Monday, either to continue cross or for the state's redirect. There may be a recross. May be a reredirect and a rerecross.

Once Cohen is done and excused, state will rest their case in chief. Defense will move for a directed verdict or a JOA (judgment of acquittal). By all rights, Merchan should grant that but he likely won't. (Would be bad for his daughter's business if he granted it.)

So then the defense needs to be ready to immediately begin their defense case in chief. They are under no legal obligation to present a defense and can rest, if they choose to do so. Pundits are of mixed views on what the defense will do. Present a defense or not?

In my opinion, I think they have to present some defense, even if extremely limited by Merchan's earlier rulings against them. The prosecution has been allowed (incorrectly) for the jury to hear about campaign finance violations to hang around out there. Defense has an expert witness, former head of the FEC Bradley Smith, which Merchan has allowed to testify but only on limited topics. But after the prosecution put Cohen's attorney's letter to the FEC from February 2018 into evidence, was the door opened for Smith to go into some of those prohibited matters? Merchan gave the jury a limiting instruction at the time but all trial lawyers know you can't put the s*** back into the horse.

That is, that the jury now knows there was an FEC investigation into this matter. So that is hanging out there unanswered by the state. The jury has alo heard Weisselberg's name throughout this trial yet have to wonder why he has not been called by the state? Weisselberg could close that loop back to Trump, which so far no one else can do besides the questionable testimony of Cohen.

Even Merchan asked the state why they haven't called him? The prosecution was quite disingenuously moved to be able to admit Weisselberg's separation agreement from the Trump Org as it contains a no disparagement clause and NDA. But that would leave the impression with the jury that Trump is preventing him from testifying, which is a load of hooey. NDAs are always breachable under compulsory process (subpoena.)

Quote:

---

bang for the buck

---

Stormy and her hubby will flee the US if Trump is acquitted? LOL.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stormy and her hubby will flee the US if Trump is acquitted? LOL.

---

Good. They better book their tickets now, bc as I understand it 3/4 of Hollywood will also be fleeing, just like they did in 2016.

aggiepanic95 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Stormy and her hubby will flee the US if Trump is acquitted? LOL.

---

Good. They better book their tickets now, bc as I understand it 3/4 of Hollywood will also be fleeing, just like they did in 2016.

---

She enjoys the attention, ie porn star. When this dries up, she will have nothing left.

agAngeldad said:

---

aggiepanic95 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Stormy and her hubby will flee the US if Trump is acquitted? LOL.

---

Good. They better book their tickets now, bc as I understand it 3/4 of Hollywood will also be fleeing, just like they did in 2016.

---

She enjoys the attention, ie porn star. When this dries up, she will have nothing left.

---

Same thing can be said about her career and her, ahem, ability to perform.

Quote:

---

Same thing can be said about her career and her, ahem, ability to perform.

---

But, but, but she's an award winning director and screenwriter in the adult film industry!

ETA: Boom-chicka-wah-wah

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Same thing can be said about her career and her, ahem, ability to perform.

---

But, but, but she's an award winning director and screenwriter in the adult film industry!

ETA: Boom-chicka-wah-wah

---

Reminds me of a really dumb joke.

Dirtiest animals on the farm????

Brown chicken, brown cow.

BMX Bandit said:

---

not sure how asking for examples of someone's false accusation against me is turning sour, but oh well.

back to the trial, this is one of greatest starts to a cross I've very seen:

Here’s how the cross-exam of Michael Cohen began:

BLANCHE:  Mr. Cohen, my name is Todd Blanche and you and I have never met.
BLANCHE: You went on TikTok and called me a “crying little shit”
COHEN: “that sounds like something I would say”

OBJECTION: SUSTAINED

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) May 14, 2024

blanche is a very gifted attorney

---

I don't think his gift is cross examination, most reports say he's struggled all trial and he finds it hard to get to the point, but that's a fun way to start cross at least

I'm surprised Emil Bove is not handling cross of Cohen. Bove seems the best cross-examiner on Trump's trial team and by most reports has done a good job

Blanche’s cross-examination is all over the map. Disconnected, lacking momentum. Necheles and Bove are much better at this. Why he got this cross is curious.

— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) May 14, 2024

[An aside: Todd Blanche has been on objection duty for Trump's team during Cohen's direct examination. That suggests Blanche will conduct the cross examination of Cohen. IMO, a mistake! Blanche has many gifts as an advocate but Emil Bove is the most skilled at cross.]

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) May 13, 2024

Quote:

---

...we learned Tuesday that Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office wanted a piece of Michael Cohen before he reported to prison in 2018. Indeed, when all the questions are answered, we might discover that it was Mueller's pitbull, Andrew Weissmann, the FBI, and the DOJ who were responsible for his bizarre plea deal that sparked the idea for this wrong-headed case.

You'll find Weissmann all over MSNBC opining on the Manhattan case and telling the audience there that Trump is guilty... of something in this accounting brouhaha.

Here's what happened in court Tuesday during Cohen's testimony when the prosecutor asked him about it.

Cohen is testifying that he met with special counsel Robert Mueller's office several times before reporting to prison. Cohen first met with the special counsel's office in 2018 before pleading guilty, and he says he was not truthful "because I was still holding onto the loyalty to President Trump."

After pleading guilty, Cohen said he testified truthfully in subsequent meetings with Mueller's team.

You will recall that Cohen received less time from federal prosecutors for cheating on his income taxes and lying to a bank and then, despite not having anything to do with his fraud case, agreeing to plead guilty to two counts of campaign election violations. As Andy McCarthy noted recently, Cohen pleaded guilty to the campaign violations without those violations ever being litigated. McCarthy noted that these charges were never tested in court.

---

Quote:

---

He marveled at why someone would plead guilty to these charges when both the feds and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) declined to bring them because these weren't campaign expenditures and were not illegal. In 2018, McCarthy made the point that Cohen pleaded guilty to charges that weren't crimes. Why did Cohen do that?

---

Why indeed?

Quote:

---

Cohen could have been imprisoned for a long time for all the charges against him. This graph from a DOJ document shows how much time he could have spent behind bars.

---

Quote:

---

In December 2018, the feds, who happily put all manner of Trump supporters in prison for long stretches, gave Cohen a three-year term. He noted on the stand Tuesday that he's still on probation.
In his testimony, the prosecution was allowed to note that Cohen went to prison for his crimes, including campaign finance violations that weren't violations of the law. This obviously will telegraph to the jury that these 34 charges in New York must be illegal campaign expenditures. That's the story the prosecution has been allowed to tell the jury even though they've charged only the bookkeeping charges.

We don't know to what extent the disgraced Mueller team had a hand, if any, in the plea bargain deal for fake campaign crimes, but Justice did. Cohen is mentioned in the Mueller Report 75 times.

---

LINK

Quote:

---

He marveled at why someone would plead guilty to these charges when both the feds and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) declined to bring them because these weren't campaign expenditures and were not illegal.

---

How does one plead guilty to federal charges the feds never brought? Marvelous indeed.

And the FEC never said they weren't illegal. They don't say that once in their report. In fact, they dismissed it because Michael Cohen had already pled guilty.

Bad take by Andy McCarthy.

Quote:

---

In sum, the public record is complete with respect to the conduct at issue in these complaints, and Mr. Cohen has been punished by the government of the United States for the conduct at issue in these matters. Thus, we concluded that pursuing these matters further was not the best use of agency resources. The Commission regularly dismisses matters where other government agencies have already adequately enforced and vindicated the Commission's interests. Furthermore, by the time OGC's recommendations came before us, the Commission was facing an extensive enforcement docket backlog resulting from a prolonged lack of a quorum

---

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf

aggiehawg said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Hawg,

Driving home, the talk radio had some lawyer from Houston on. Don't remember his name,but seemed to be pretty high level.

He said that the defense should have asked specifically to Stormy questions related to the actual crimes being charged by the prosecution. Get her on the record stating that she has no info on any relevant facts of the case. Then, ask her if the defense knew she knew nothing about actual facts dealing with the actual charges.

Let the jury know that she was only there to defame Trump and add no actual facts to the case.

What are your thoughts on that?

---

Necheles did ask her if she had any knowledge about the business records involved in this case and she said she did not.

But asking her if she thought the prosecutors knew she had no relevant knowledge calls for speculation or even hearsay. David Pecker and Keith Davidson would have no reason nor ability to know about internal record keeping at the Trump Org. Such knowledge is not a requirement for a witness who otherwise has some relevant knowledge.

But the more important factors regarding Stormy the defense extracted from her were her financial benefit from being a witness and personal animus towards Trump. Much more material as to her credibility, along with her prior inconsistent statements.

Defense was forced to play cards Merchan had dealt them with allowing the prosecution to ask about the details of her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. The judge set that table.

So that particular criticism of the defense team misses the mark, in my view.

---

So what remedies are available after the fact to Trump and his team for the obvious error in allowing her to testify as to the sexual details? That was so gratuitous to the whole case before the court that it just baffles me how the judge thought allowing it was a good idea. Is that kind of testimony considered so prejudicial that an appeals court could order a mistrial over it? Or is there some other way to remedy the damage caused by basically allowing a character witness to testify in a trial that is supposed to be about financial documents?

The Judge didn't think a lot of the testimony was a good idea. He objected numerous times himself, which is extraordinary. And asked the Defense why they didn't object to some other things. And he warned the prosecution when mulling the first mistrial motion that he wasn't pleased with some of the testimony.


Generally speaking, the defense can appeal the final verdict and claim the jury would not have reached the verdict except for that testimony. That's a *really* high bar and not something I would count on happening. New York will have its own details but that's the general idea.

Quote:

---

So what remedies are available after the fact to Trump and his team for the obvious error in allowing her to testify as to the sexual details? That was so gratuitous to the whole case before the court that it just baffles me how the judge thought allowing it was a good idea. Is that kind of testimony considered so prejudicial that an appeals court could order a mistrial over it? Or is there some other way to remedy the damage caused by basically allowing a character witness to testify in a trial that is supposed to be about financial documents?

---

I have not seen the transcript of what all was said during the brief hearing before Merchan's ruling that details, including some sexual encounter details were admissible to somehow bolster Stormy' credibility. But that was exactly what the prosecution argued successfully.

How far did Merchan discuss the state equivalent of evidentiary rule 403?

Federal version of that rule:

Quote:

---

Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Primary tabs

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

---

Were those details more probative than prejudicial? Were they confusing to the jury? Wasting time?

But go back to the threshhold question: how was any of Stormy's testimony even relevant to an internal business records case? What was Merchan's response to that? IDK. Was admitting her testimony an abuse of his discretion?

Merchan didn't think he abused his discretion in twice denying the defense's motion for mistrial.
.

Quote:

---

But go back to the threshhold question: how was any of Stormy's testimony even relevant to an internal business records case? What was Merchan's response to that? IDK. Was admitting her testimony an abuse of his discretion?

---

While many folks, myself included, don't entirely believe it was *necessary* for her to testify, the State obviously wanted her to show (1) Trump would have reason to want the public to avoid hearing the story and (2) Trump never told her he wanted to keep the story secret until 2016. The State asked her about (2) like 10 times.

Those are both probative here and why she was generally admissible as a witness.

Law360 has been making the transcripts searchable and easier to navigate. The first mistrial motion starts on page 161. The judge's decision and explanation starts on page 172 and runs through page 176. And is followed by all the discussion about the limiting instruction the judge crafted.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24656806-2024-05-07-transcript-people-vs-donald-trump-4c926ee0-full

The bottom line was:

Quote:

---

I think that I said multiple times to you and to the Prosecution that we were going into way too much details, we were going into much more than we needed to, it wasn't necessary. I still believed that it wasn't necessary. Having said that, though, I don't think that we have reached a point where a mistrial is in order. I believe that a limiting instruction as to that incident in 2011 will cure that issue. And I believe that you have a remedy of cross-examination. And, as I said before, the more times the story has been changed, the more fodder for cross-examination that you have. So, I'm going to deny your motion for a mistrial at this time. Anything else?

---

Quote:

---

I think that I said multiple times to you and to the Prosecution that we were going into way too much details, we were going into much more than we needed to, it wasn't necessary. I still believed that it wasn't necessary. Having said that, though, I don't think that we have reached a point where a mistrial is in order. I believe that a limiting instruction as to that incident in 2011 will cure that issue. And I believe that you have a remedy of cross-examination. And, as I said before, the more times the story has been changed, the more fodder for cross-examination that you have. So, I'm going to deny your motion for a mistrial at this time. Anything else?

---

So zero consideration of rule 403. Got it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think that I said multiple times to you and to the Prosecution that we were going into way too much details, we were going into much more than we needed to, it wasn't necessary. I still believed that it wasn't necessary. Having said that, though, I don't think that we have reached a point where a mistrial is in order. I believe that a limiting instruction as to that incident in 2011 will cure that issue. And I believe that you have a remedy of cross-examination. And, as I said before, the more times the story has been changed, the more fodder for cross-examination that you have. So, I'm going to deny your motion for a mistrial at this time. Anything else?

---

So zero consideration of rule 403. Got it.

---

No, I don't think that's true. Read the transcript.

They spent a long time discussing the issues. 20+ pages of discussion. They talk about why she was admitted as a witness, what was probative, and what was problematic.

Quote:

---

In reaching a decision whether to exclude on grounds of unfair prejudice, consideration should be given to the probable effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a limiting instruction. See Rule 106 [now 105] and Advisory Committee's Note thereunder. The availability of other means of proof may also be an appropriate factor.

---

LINK

BOMBSHELL: Michael Cohen’s attorney Robert Costello just testified to Congress that Michael Cohen told him that he didn’t even believe Stormy Daniels story, and only paid her off to save Trump and his family embarrassment.

This completely blows up the entire case in… pic.twitter.com/JQPXROKuPF

— 🇺🇸Travis🇺🇸 (@Travis_4_Trump) May 15, 2024

The prosecution still hasn't described what the predicate crime was or how it was carried out. They seem to want people to conflate unsavory things with illegality and that's their whole strategy.

aggiehawg said:

---

BOMBSHELL: Michael Cohen’s attorney Robert Costello just testified to Congress that Michael Cohen told him that he didn’t even believe Stormy Daniels story, and only paid her off to save Trump and his family embarrassment.

This completely blows up the entire case in… pic.twitter.com/JQPXROKuPF

— 🇺🇸Travis🇺🇸 (@Travis_4_Trump) May 15, 2024

---

So is Robert Costello going to testify in the Trump case? Or was this one of the witnesses that the judge denied being subpoenaed? (My brain can't keep up and I haven't able to find it).

I believe stuff with Costello was discussed during direct. Would need to look at the transcript if this was another one of the lies Cohen admitted to on the stand.

Quote:

---

So is Robert Costello going to testify in the Trump case? Or was this one of the witnesses that the judge denied being subpoenaed? (My brain can't keep up and I haven't able to find it).

---

No idea. I do know that as part of the grand jury hearings prior to this indictment that Costello testified because Cohen had waived his attorney client privilege.

Costello's testimony would likely fall under a collateral attack on Cohen's truthfulness and that has restrictions, meaning Merchan could disallow his testimony under that.

But if Blanche asks Cohen questions about the time period wherein Costello was his attorney and Cohen lies about what he told Costello? Then it is less of a collateral attack. Merchan could still disallow it but that makes it harder.

Further, Blanche should ask Cohen about how Lanny Davis became his counsel, when who suggested it, etc. Cohen's story flipped when Lanny (a Clinton crony) became his lawyer.

ETA: Rule 608

SwigAg11 said:

---

I believe stuff with Costello was discussed during direct. Would need to look at the transcript if this was another one of the lies Cohen admitted to on the stand.

---

Cohen testified at length about Robert Costello yesterday. After the FBI raid, Costello approached Cohen about representing him and Costello discussed his connections to Trump and Guiliani. Cohen, of course, didn't retain Costello as his lawyer.

This whole case is absolutely amazing.

Quote:

---

That Trump didn't want the story heard by the public (or his family) has never been in question and has no bearing on whether Trump knew about or asked Cohen to send false invoices. What Trump told her between 2011 and 2016 is also irrelevant because he isn't charged with anything that happened during that time.

---

Whether this would or wouldn't be a campaign concern, or whether or not Trump expressed concern about the story coming out before the election is certainly relevant to the theory the payments were actually campaign contributions and expenditures and not just "normal" NDAs without a campaign connection.

You might not like or believe the theory. That's fine, but that's the theory.

Quote:

---

"I read Michael Cohen's testimony from yesterday's trial in New York on the way down on the train, and virtually every statement he made about me is another lie," Costello said.

Costello's remarks came during a House Weaponization of the Federal Government Subcommittee hearing, during which he described his experience representing Cohen for a couple months beginning in April 2018 while the Department of Justice was investigating Cohen.

A few months later, in August 2018, Cohen would plead guilty to several crimes, including tax evasion, lying to a bank, and campaign finance violations.

Costello said Cohen appeared desperate to find a way to avoid jail.

"I will do whatever the F I have to do. I will never spend one day in jail," Costello recalled Cohen saying repeatedly during their first meeting at the Loews Regency Hotel in Manhattan.

Costello said Cohen was frantically seeking an "escape route" and had even admitted to contemplating jumping off the roof of the hotel two nights prior.

---

Quote:

---

Costello said that he advised Cohen to bring any damning information he had about Trump forward to the U.S. attorney's office in New York, and that this could help Cohen stay out of jail. However, Cohen replied that he had no evidence against Trump.

"I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything on Donald Trump. ... I don't have anything on Donald Trump," Costello recalled Cohen saying.

---

LINK

Why wouldn't they call Costello? How could they not? This is super damning.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So is Robert Costello going to testify in the Trump case? Or was this one of the witnesses that the judge denied being subpoenaed? (My brain can't keep up and I haven't able to find it).

---

No idea. I do know that as part of the grand jury hearings prior to this indictment that Costello testified because Cohen had waived his attorney client privilege.

Costello's testimony would likely fall under a collateral attack on Cohen's truthfulness and that has restrictions, meaning Merchan could disallow his testimony under that.

But if Blanche asks Cohen questions about the time period wherein Costello was his attorney and Cohen lies about what he told Costello? Then it is less of a collateral attack. Merchan could still disallow it but that makes it harder.

Further, Blanche should ask Cohen about how Lanny Davis became his counsel, when who suggested it, etc. Cohen's story flipped when Lanny (a Clinton crony) became his lawyer.

ETA: Rule 608

---

Is it too late for the defense to introduce that video as evidence? I understand that normally you would have to brought it forth in discovery, but this is a statement that occurred after the trial started. Could the defense ask Cohen if he told Costello that Trump wanted to protect his family? Then either Cohen answers that he did say that, or Cohen says he didn't. If says he did say that, then you bring up that it's contrary to his statements yesterday. If he says he did not say that, then you introduce the video as evidence of perjury?