UAS Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Is the prosecution able to meet with Cohen to continue to prep him further or is it hands off now that he's on the stand?

---

They can but Blanche will ask Cohen about that when they reconvene on Monday.

---

If Cohen lies, will the Prosecution have to stand up and admit it?

---

No. Only reason the prosecution would do that is if they are so pissed off at Cohen that they have decided to pursue perjury charges against him. We all know that aint gonna happen.

---

Wait...so the prosecution could allow KNOWN false information to be stated and not have to notify the defense?

---

In NYC? In Merchan's court? Apparently, yes.

Did the defense today bring up about possibly having Costello testify? If so, did Merchan rule?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Did the defense today bring up about possibly having Costello testify? If so, did Merchan rule?

---

Think so but not sure from CNN's blog feed.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

At this point in the trial, for folks who have been following it closely (I've only casually kept up with it), what are the thoughts on Trump's chances for acquittal? Ya'll lean that way, too close to call, or lean the jury will convict?

Of course given this is being tried in New York, where Trump my understanding got less than 15% of the vote in 2020, that would seem to have the jury pool deck already stacked against him.

---

It's 50/50, same as before the case started. I've found the case very interesting so far, like following a live John Grisham book, but the case has never mattered here. As with anything Trump, all that matters is how much the people love/hate him.

---

I don't think this is true at all. I strongly dislike Trump and fully believe this case is a sham brought as purely partisan political lawfare. I think there are a whole lot of others holding this same view, and even quite a few on the left who recognize this for what it is, whether they will fully admit it or not.

---

I am with you. As one of the resident 'moderates' here, I dislike Trump but I am very skeptical this trial would be happening right now if Trump had decided not to run in 2024. This is a political sham as you said.

Here is the thing though, this election campaign strategy by the Dems to hang a felony conviction on Trump before the election…perhaps costing him some critical votes in the middle voter pool… 'might' very well work. But the GOP voters in the primary knew the Dems were going to play this card - the charges were on deck - and still went with Trump as the horse they wanted to ride, so it is what it is if he's not acquitted.

---

You are kinda naive if you're only skeptical this would be being held if Trump wasn't running. 0.00% chance this trial is held if he's not running LOL

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

At this point in the trial, for folks who have been following it closely (I've only casually kept up with it), what are the thoughts on Trump's chances for acquittal? Ya'll lean that way, too close to call, or lean the jury will convict?

Of course given this is being tried in New York, where Trump my understanding got less than 15% of the vote in 2020, that would seem to have the jury pool deck already stacked against him.

---

It's 50/50, same as before the case started. I've found the case very interesting so far, like following a live John Grisham book, but the case has never mattered here. As with anything Trump, all that matters is how much the people love/hate him.

---

I don't think this is true at all. I strongly dislike Trump and fully believe this case is a sham brought as purely partisan political lawfare. I think there are a whole lot of others holding this same view, and even quite a few on the left who recognize this for what it is, whether they will fully admit it or not.

---

I am with you. As one of the resident 'moderates' here, I dislike Trump but I am very skeptical this trial would be happening right now if Trump had decided not to run in 2024. This is a political sham as you said.

Here is the thing though, this election campaign strategy by the Dems to hang a felony conviction on Trump before the election…perhaps costing him some critical votes in the middle voter pool… 'might' very well work. But the GOP voters in the primary knew the Dems were going to play this card - the charges were on deck - and still went with Trump as the horse they wanted to ride, so it is what it is if he's not acquitted.

---

You are kinda naive if you're only skeptical this would be being held if Trump wasn't running. 0.00% chance this trial is held if he's not running LOL

---

Given the left's extreme hate of Trump, I couldn't go with 0.0% chance. But I do think it would have been a really low chance.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

At this point in the trial, for folks who have been following it closely (I've only casually kept up with it), what are the thoughts on Trump's chances for acquittal? Ya'll lean that way, too close to call, or lean the jury will convict?

Of course given this is being tried in New York, where Trump my understanding got less than 15% of the vote in 2020, that would seem to have the jury pool deck already stacked against him.

---

It's 50/50, same as before the case started. I've found the case very interesting so far, like following a live John Grisham book, but the case has never mattered here. As with anything Trump, all that matters is how much the people love/hate him.

---

I don't think this is true at all. I strongly dislike Trump and fully believe this case is a sham brought as purely partisan political lawfare. I think there are a whole lot of others holding this same view, and even quite a few on the left who recognize this for what it is, whether they will fully admit it or not.

---

I am with you. As one of the resident 'moderates' here, I dislike Trump but I am very skeptical this trial would be happening right now if Trump had decided not to run in 2024. This is a political sham as you said.

Here is the thing though, this election campaign strategy by the Dems to hang a felony conviction on Trump before the election…perhaps costing him some critical votes in the middle voter pool… 'might' very well work. But the GOP voters in the primary knew the Dems were going to play this card - the charges were on deck - and still went with Trump as the horse they wanted to ride, so it is what it is if he's not acquitted.

---

You are kinda naive if you're only skeptical this would be being held if Trump wasn't running. 0.00% chance this trial is held if he's not running LOL

---

Given the left's extreme hate of Trump, I couldn't go with 0.0% chance. But I do think it would have been a really low chance.

---

ZERO chance. Nada.

Quote:

---

Given the left's extreme hate of Trump, I couldn't go with 0.0% chance. But I do think it would have been a really low chance.

---

Dearie dear try to follow along.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump, aiming to become only the second commander-in-chief ever elected to two nonconsecutive terms, announced Tuesday night that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.
"In order to make America great and glorious again, I am tonight announcing my candidacy for president of the United States," Trump told a crowd gathered at Mar-a-Lago, his waterfront estate in Florida, where his campaign will be headquartered.

---

CNN on November 16, 2022. LINK

Now which comes first?

Quote:

---

Matthew Colangelo who recently served as a senior official in the US Justice Department and before that served as an attorney on the Trump Foundation investigation with the New York attorney general's office will now serve as senior counsel to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, according to an announcement from the office.
The release said Colangelo will focus on the office's "most sensitive and high-profile white-collar investigations."
He will also focus on the office's "cases, policies, and strategies in housing and tenant protection and labor and worker protection," marking the first time the Manhattan district attorney's office will have an executive position in these areas.

---

CNN December 2022. LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Is the prosecution able to meet with Cohen to continue to prep him further or is it hands off now that he's on the stand?

---

They can but Blanche will ask Cohen about that when they reconvene on Monday.

---

If Cohen lies, will the Prosecution have to stand up and admit it?

---

No. Only reason the prosecution would do that is if they are so pissed off at Cohen that they have decided to pursue perjury charges against him. We all know that aint gonna happen.

---

1. Follow him
2. Record how long he's with the prosecution
3. Ask him how long he met with them
4. When he lies, nail him again.

This dude can't not lie. It's part of his being.

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

---

Judge would rage, declare a mistrial and blame it on the defense.

---

For election purposes, I suppose the Dems would hate a mistrial. They want a conviction before the election.

---

A mistrial would be better than an acquittal for them, however.

---

For a talking point...for a awhile. There is no way Bragg would want to retry this case. He simply cannot. He has no witnesses that are credible and support his case. Zero.

---

Has that mattered at all so far?

Quote:

---

Has that mattered at all so far?

---

When one's talking about retrying a case after a mistrial or a hung jury, it absolutely does matter.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Has that mattered at all so far?

---

When one's talking about retrying a case after a mistrial or a hung jury, it absolutely does matter.

---

to this clown prosecutor and/or this clown judge? They probably welcome the chance to do this again to Trump.

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Has that mattered at all so far?

---

When one's talking about retrying a case after a mistrial or a hung jury, it absolutely does matter.

---

to this clown prosecutor and/or this clown judge? They probably welcome the chance to do this again to Trump.

---

But time constraints here. Have to start the entire procedure over, including the pretrial motions, possible appeals, motions in limine, all before a large and I mean a LARGE panel is assembled for voir dire.

We saw this time how many potyential jurors walked at first chance by just raising their hands. Now the members of that next panel are looking at the time investment, how to get out of it and empaneling a jury is five times as difficult if not more. And there is the flip side now. New Yorkers who feel they have been taken as chumps by Bragg. They might lie just to get on the jury with the goal of being a Trump vote.

This trial has been that polarizing, even in NYC's Manhattan. Merchan would still be the judge, unless his supervising judge tells him must recuse this time.

Should have rigged up a few of those Big Ass Directional Fans in the very back to blow them all out. They'd all be gone in about 3 or 4 seconds.

Quote:

---

Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), client of Justice Juan Merchan's daughter's consulting firm, said Tuesday he prepared Michael Cohen for testimony.

Cohen, of course, testified this week in the ongoing trial of former President Donald Trump, and many believed that Goldman's comments indicated he was preparing Cohen for this testimony. But Goldman's office now says that he was referring to previous testimony from Cohen in other matters and that Goldman has had nothing to do with Cohen in this ongoing case in New York.

"Congressman Goldman was referring to his February 2019 deposition of Michael Cohen, when the Congressman was Director of Investigations for the House Intelligence Committee overseeing an investigation into Donald Trump's financial ties to Russia," Goldman's communications director Madison Andrus told Breitbart News on Wednesday afternoon after the initial publication of this story. "The Congressman has had nothing to do with the Manhattan District Attorney's prosecution of Donald Trump."

Goldman also paid more than $157,000 dollars to the political consulting firm of Merchan's daughter, Loren Merchan, Federal Election Commission disbursement filings obtained by Breitbart News show:

---

FTR: Goldman is not counsel of record in this case. Subornation of perjury would not apply to him.

BUT he's not counsel either, meaning he could be subpoenaed to testify about that and a fair judge would not quash...oh wait, nevermind.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Should have rigged up a few of those Big Ass Directional Fans in the very back to blow them all out. They'd all be gone in about 3 or 4 seconds.

---

The Hubs is also a cartoonist. Back in the 90s one of my closes GFs was getting married (nearly 40 at the time and the groom-to-be was 28. Had some doubts there but she was happy...so) we gave her a bachelorett party and I asked my boyfriend at the time to draw a cartoon figure of "DickMan" which he did. We went all out on that theme. Different colored papers, sizes, shaped pasta, cake,jello shot moulds, bobbing for cucumbers, even pigs in a blanket had smokies with two small olives on either side with a cheese dough cover. (I had to call my Mom about how to make them recognizable as well you know, twigs and berries. My Mom, rest her soul repled without a second of hesitation, "Use dental floss on the dough for that definition.")

Looking back, I should have trademarked DickMan for Bachelorette Parties going forward.

Do we know if it's been stated if the possible exculpatory evidence that Costello had provided to Bragg was ever turned over to the defense?

Edit: I watched Costello's interview on FoxNews. He did make a comment about Cohen saying he had eventually gotten paid back for the Stormy NDA. I have a feeling the defense may not want to call him as a witness to not have that come up at all to the jurors.

DickMan -- did he have a super hero costume on or something? We need some more details here

aggiehawg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Should have rigged up a few of those Big Ass Directional Fans in the very back to blow them all out. They'd all be gone in about 3 or 4 seconds.

---

The Hubs is also a cartoonist. Back in the 90s one of my closes GFs was getting married (nearly 40 at the time and the groom-to-be was 28. Had some doubts there but she was happy...so) we gave her a bachelorett party and I asked my boyfriend at the time to draw a cartoon figure of "DickMan" which he did. We went all out on that theme. Different colored papers, sizes, shaped pasta, cake,jello shot moulds, bobbing for cucumbers, even pigs in a blanket had smokies with two small olives on either side with a cheese dough cover. (I had to call my Mom about how to make them recognizable as well you know, twigs and berries. My Mom, rest her soul repled without a second of hesitation, "Use dental floss on the dough for that definition.")

Looking back, I should have trademarked DickMan for Bachelorette Parties going forward.

---

Pics??

SwigAg11 said:

---

Do we know if it's been stated if the possible exculpatory evidence that Costello had provided to Bragg was ever turned over to the defense?

Edit: I watched Costello's interview on FoxNews. He did make a comment about Cohen saying he had eventually gotten paid back for the Stormy NDA. I have a feeling the defense may not want to call him as a witness to not have that come up at all to the jurors.

---

I don't quite get why the defense is afraid of the NDA coming up since it's legal. Cohen's own lawyer calling him a liar and directly refuting his story seems pretty devastating for the prosecution.
Cohen wants the jury to believe that he only ever lied for Trump and that when he's not working for Trump he's a completely honest man.

Quote:

---

Pics?

---

No. What happens at bachelortette party is no pics!

Casual Cynic said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Do we know if it's been stated if the possible exculpatory evidence that Costello had provided to Bragg was ever turned over to the defense?

Edit: I watched Costello's interview on FoxNews. He did make a comment about Cohen saying he had eventually gotten paid back for the Stormy NDA. I have a feeling the defense may not want to call him as a witness to not have that come up at all to the jurors.

---

I don't quite get why the defense is afraid of the NDA coming up since it's legal. Cohen's own lawyer calling him a liar and directly refuting his story seems pretty devastating for the prosecution.
Cohen wants the jury to believe that he only ever lied for Trump and that when he's not working for Trump he's a completely honest man.

---

The defense team has their strategy I guess. Based on the talks the judge and both counsels had yesterday about schedules, there doesn't seem to be enough time for the defense to call Costello. Now, maybe the judge and counsel are meeting today (no trial though today) and this could be discussed again.

So I have a question, yesterday during the trial when Blanche was talking about: asking for a pardon Cohen made the statement that Costello was never his attorney however why would he sign a waiver for attorney client privilege if he wasn't ever his attorney?

Cohen: I wanted the nightmare over. I wanted to find out if they would be doing pre-pardons.
Trump's lawyer Blanche: You had Mr. Costello reach out to Mr. Giuliani to explore it?
Cohen: Mr. Costello was never my lawyer.
Blanche: But you had him reach out for you?

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) May 16, 2024

Is that another lie on the stand yesterday that was just overlooked? To me that's an opening to call Costello not only as a rebuttal witness but as a fact witness that can't be objected to because Cohen lied on the stand about Costello never being his attorney

cohen has always said costello was not his attorney.

cohen waived all attorney-client privilege when he was seeking a lighter sentence. he said costello and gulluani were dangling a pardon in exchange for him keeping quiet about Trump. US Attorneys said the would need him to waive privilege to investigate.

BMX Bandit said:

---

cohen has always said costello was not his attorney.

cohen waived all attorney-client privilege when he was seeking a lighter sentence. he said costello and gulluani were dangling a pardon in exchange for him keeping quiet about Trump. US Attorneys said the would need him to waive privilege to investigate.

---

That's where our confusion is coming in. If Cohen waived all attorney-client privilege, then wasn't Costello Cohen's attorney for a brief time? Or is this a semantics game where Cohen was in discussions with Costello as a possible attorney and was never retained as one?

let me preface by saying the privilege still attaches if you are seeking legal advice from a potential attorney but don't end up retaining them. I don't think that is the issue here, but could be.

my understanding is the DOJ told Cohen in order for them to investigate the claims he was making about pardons was because attorneys would say the information was privileged. So Cohen said "Fine, I waive privilege for any conversation regarding pardons." that does not mean Costello was ever his attorney. it also doesn't mean he wasn't.. frankly, I don't think it matters either way.

cohen has said he was never his lawyer, Costello can say whatever he wants

BMX Bandit said:

---

let me preface by saying the privilege still attaches if you are seeking legal advice from a potential attorney but don't end up retaining them. I don't think that is the issue here, but could be.

my understanding is the DOJ told Cohen in order for them to investigate the claims he was making about pardons was because attorneys would say the information was privileged. So Cohen said "Fine, I waive privilege for any conversation regarding pardons." that does not mean Costello was ever his attorney. it also doesn't mean he wasn't.. frankly, I don't think it matters either way.

cohen has said he was never his lawyer, Costello can say whatever he wants

---

Thank you for the clarification. Your explanation was the splitting hairs I thought it was.

I guess the question in the end will be does the defense feel like they need to call Costello and will Merchan allow it. I go back to my previous comment that Costello mentioned in his interview on FoxNews yesterday that Cohen told him he was eventually paid back for the Stormy NDA. I'm wondering if the defense wouldn't want that discussed in front of the jurors since the "misclassified" repayments are the underlying impetus for all of this.

I don't think they are going to call him.

Quote:

---

Costello mentioned in his interview on FoxNews yesterday that Cohen told him he was eventually paid back for the Stormy NDA.

---

did cohen say he wasn't paid back?

I don't either but wondering who the other potential witness they might call could be? Any ideas?

I believe its their expert or no one. they are saying they have not decided on trump testifying, but I don't think anyone actually believes that

Costello shouldn't need to testify after yesterday. Neither should Trump. This trial is over if the jury has 2 people on it that are fair. A hung jury means this will never be tried again.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't think they are going to call him.

Quote:

---

Costello mentioned in his interview on FoxNews yesterday that Cohen told him he was eventually paid back for the Stormy NDA.

---

did cohen say he wasn't paid back?

---

I was simply thinking that the defense may not want that aspect to come back up again?

thats part of my thinking also. dangling pardons isn't an issue they want to talk about, even if the allegations are bogus

BMX Bandit said:

---

thats part of my thinking also. dangling pardons isn't an issue they want to talk about, even if the allegations are bogus

---

That's true too. There are aspects of Costello's possible testimony that both the prosecution and defense wouldn't want to go into, for wildly different reasons of course.