Quote:

---

Michael Cohen is asked about a run for Congress.
"Is that true?" Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked. "Yes, sir," Cohen said.
Cohen confirmed he told a reporter one of the reasons he should run for Congress is he's got the "best name recognition out there."
"My name recognition is because of the journey that I've been on, is it affiliated with Mr. Trump, yes not because of Mr. Trump," Cohen said.
Trump smiled as Cohen said this.

---

Quote:

---

"Your journey has been near daily attacks on president trump, at least since 2020?" Blanche asked
"Sure," Cohen said.
Blanche asked him to answer yes or no, not sure. "Yes sir," Cohen says.
Blanche asked Cohen a series of questions confirming Trump's trust in Cohen: "President Trump trusted you..trusted your counsel...his family trusted you,...his wife trusted you." Each time, Cohen confirmed.

---

ETA: Think Blanche is getting close to finishing cross.

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is revisiting the $420,000 payment to Michael Cohen.
Cohen agrees $150,000 is the Daniels payment and what he paid to Red Finch.
"You testified that Mr. Weisselberg told you that that was being grossed up because you're in a 50% tax bracket?" Blanche asks.
"Correct," Cohen says.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger objected, after which attorneys approached the bench for a sidebar.
Trump attorney Emil Bove and Trump chatted briefly after Bove returned from sidebar.
Trump smirked at what Bove says and shifts in his chair.

---

Quote:

---

"Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of this case?" Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked
"Yes sir," Michael Cohen said.
As this exchange was happening, Donald Trump turned toward the witness stand, with his arm perched on the back of his chair, looking intently at Cohen.
"Because if President Trump is convicted, that would benefit you personally and financially, right?" Blanche asked.
"No sir," Cohen said.
Cohen said: "I talk about it on my podcasts, I talk about it on TikTok and they make money and that's how I was viewing your question. Whether Mr. Trump is ultimately determined innocent or guilty is not going to affect whether I speak about it or not."
CNN's Abby Philip contributed reporting to this post.

---

Animus+financial interest in the case+past embezzlement=no credibility.

Quote:

---

Attorney Todd Blanche continues to press Michael Cohen on whether it would benefit him financially if Trump is found guilty.
"It's better if he's not, for me, because it gives me more to talk about in the future," Cohen says.
Blanche confirmed with Cohen he'd like to get revenge on Trump and has said "revenge is best served cold." Cohen confirms he meant it when he said it on his own podcast and now again in court.

---

Quote:

---

"It's true that you will lie out of loyalty, correct?" Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked.
"Yes sir," Cohen responded.
Blanche ended Cohen's cross-examination with this exchange.

---

Called it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not being argumentative, just ignorant. How is that embezzlement?

---

Ever heard of a fictitous payee? When a bookkeeper creates a false vendor account and then cuts checks to that vendor for false invoices?

Same principle. The actual amount owed to Red Finch was $20,000 because Cohen talked them into accepting a lesser amount. But Cohen submitted the original amount of $50,000 without informing the Trump Org of the reduction in the bill.

What did Cohen originally do for the Trump Org? Negotiate existing invoice reductions with various vendors. So I would expect that the trick he pulled with Red Finch. That there is a history and a pattern, not a one off.

---

No, I get that one.

I meant specifically the AT&T payments. I may have misread it, but I thought they were paying him like a contract lawyer on retainer or something. It was those payments I couldn't figure out as being in the category of embezzlement.

4stringAg said:

---

I mean, Cohen's testimony and him being proven to be a lying grifter should be enough to toss this case at this point. This should never even go to the jury who in my opinion is biased and unreliable and won't be capable of understanding all this nuance and what crime is even being charged and will simply base their judgement on if they think Trump and Stormy had an affair.

---

Jury instructions probably won't help them much with the nuances nor even which crimes were the predicate crimes for elevating these charges to a felony to get around the long expired statute of limitations.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Michael Cohen if it was possible he talked to Donald Trump about the Stormy Daniels issue in October 2016 as well as the other matters proposed by defense attorney Todd Blanche on cross-examination.
Cohen confirms.
Hoffinger notes that the defense counsel brought up how busy he was in October 2016, asking if he was busy all the time. Cohen confirms he was.
"Were you too busy in October 2016 to finalize the Stormy Daniels payoff with Mr. Trump?" Hoffinger asks.
"No ma'am," Cohen says.
"Were you too busy to get his approval to make that payoff?" Hoffinger asks.
"No ma'am," Cohen says.

---

Quote:

---

"It's true that you will lie out of loyalty, correct?" Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked.

"Yes sir," Cohen responded.

Blanche ended Cohen's cross-examination with this exchange.

---

Credit to Todd here as a lesser litigator would be tempted to **** that up.

Let's face it, the whole thing is a farce, the prosecution doesn't even have a charge and all because their only goal is to get this to a TDS packed jury they know will convict without any evidence

Blanche establishes and serial liar Cohen admits that he will lie under oath for loyalty.

FINAL QUESTION COMING:

Blanche: And you still testify that you have no doubt that you had that conversation with Donald Trump about Stormy Daniels (referring to Oct 24 call).

Cohen: Yes…

— Andrew H. Giuliani (@AndrewHGiuliani) May 20, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I mean, Cohen's testimony and him being proven to be a lying grifter should be enough to toss this case at this point. This should never even go to the jury who in my opinion is biased and unreliable and won't be capable of understanding all this nuance and what crime is even being charged and will simply base their judgement on if they think Trump and Stormy had an affair.

---

Jury instructions probably won't help them much with the nuances nor even which crimes were the predicate crimes for elevating these charges to a felony to get around the long expired statute of limitations.

---

Agreed.

If nobody here can understand wtf is going on with this case then what chance does the jury have?

They'll simply convict on every theory presented to them.

Quote:

---

No, I get that one.

I meant specifically the AT&T payments. I may have misread it, but I thought they were paying him like a contract lawyer on retainer or something. It was those payments I couldn't figure out as being in the category of embezzlement.

---

Oh but essentially same answer. I was working off Cohen's pause before responding, "I don't believe so," about the billings to AT&T. The relationship may be legit but what Cohen was billing could just as easily be part of his pattern of embezzlement. Again, overbilling a la Bendini, Lambert and Locke.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if at some point Cohen was working with or against some Mob folks (being they usually have a hand in construction in NY and NJ. Was he skimming from those "vendors" as well?

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen was asked if he ever sent Allen Weisselberg a retainer agreement.
"No ma'am because there was no legal work that I was to be paid for. There was no representation agreement within which to send," Cohen explained.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger followed up and asked if the $420,000 owed as reimbursement had anything to do with a retainer agreement.
"No, ma'am," Cohen said.
Hoffinger asked Cohen if he was ever paid, or billed Trump, for the work he did for him or Melania Trump.
"No ma'am," Cohen said.
She also asked if the $420,000 he was paid in 2017 covered any of that work.
"No ma'am," Cohen said.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Michael Cohen what Red Finch did for Trump.
Cohen said Trump was polling low in the CNBC poll.
"And it upset him," Cohen says."And he had me come to his office and provide me a sheet of paper that showed it."
"I reached out to Red Finch who assured me he was able to go through the acquisitions of IP addresses to create an algorithm that would ensure Mr. Trump would rise and rise significantly into this poll," Cohen added.
Cohen is now looking directly at the jury as he's answering Hoffinger's question to explain the Red Finch situation.
Cohen said Trump wanted to be number one in the poll but after Red Finch's work, he ended up at nine.
Cohen says "despite cheating" Trump felt he didn't get his money's worth for the work.
Cohen added that Trump did not pay Red Finch because CNBC ended up not moving forward with this poll, "and so he didn't feel he had gotten the benefit" for the services they had provided.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen was asked why he took a $50,000 pay back from former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg for Red Finch, even though he only paid the guy $20,000
"For a long time, I had been telling him about the 50,000 so that I could collect it for the president of Red Finch," Cohen said.

Quote:

---

"I was angered because of the reduction in the bonus, and so I just felt it was almost like self-help. I wasn't going to let him have the benefit (of) this way as well. I wasn't going to correct the conversation I was having with Allen about it. I had not only protected him to the best that I could, but I had also laid out money to Red Finch a year and a half earlier and again $130,000 to have my bonus cut by two-thirds was very upsetting to say the least," Cohen continued.

---

Hoffinger then asked, "but you admitted on cross that it was wrong."
"It was," Cohen says.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I mean, Cohen's testimony and him being proven to be a lying grifter should be enough to toss this case at this point. This should never even go to the jury who in my opinion is biased and unreliable and won't be capable of understanding all this nuance and what crime is even being charged and will simply base their judgement on if they think Trump and Stormy had an affair.

---

Jury instructions probably won't help them much with the nuances nor even which crimes were the predicate crimes for elevating these charges to a felony to get around the long expired statute of limitations.

---

I can't wait to see the BS the judge has to spin in his instructions to try to explain the legal Rube Goldberg attempted here. It's going to be a career damaging embarrassment to the profession if he's not very careful and clever.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen was asked if he ever sent Allen Weisselberg a retainer agreement.
"No ma'am because there was no legal work that I was to be paid for. There was no representation agreement within which to send," Cohen explained.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger followed up and asked if the $420,000 owed as reimbursement had anything to do with a retainer agreement.
"No, ma'am," Cohen said.
Hoffinger asked Cohen if he was ever paid, or billed Trump, for the work he did for him or Melania Trump.
"No ma'am," Cohen said.
She also asked if the $420,000 he was paid in 2017 covered any of that work.
"No ma'am," Cohen said.

---

---

Geez.... how can anyone keep up with this?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen was asked if he ever sent Allen Weisselberg a retainer agreement.
"No ma'am because there was no legal work that I was to be paid for. There was no representation agreement within which to send," Cohen explained.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger followed up and asked if the $420,000 owed as reimbursement had anything to do with a retainer agreement.
"No, ma'am," Cohen said.
Hoffinger asked Cohen if he was ever paid, or billed Trump, for the work he did for him or Melania Trump.
"No ma'am," Cohen said.
She also asked if the $420,000 he was paid in 2017 covered any of that work.
"No ma'am," Cohen said.

---

---

I don't understand how Cohen not billing Trump for the other legal work helps the prosecutions case. To me, it implies that Trump thought of the $35,000 a month as essentially a salary, and Cohen would basically be available to do whatever the Trumps needed.

"Mr. Cohen, please define 'Bonus' "

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is returning to the letter Michael Cohen's attorney sent to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2018 on the Stormy Daniels payment.
Cohen had testified under cross-examination that he said there was an "omission" in that letter, Hoffinger notes, and during direct that it was misleading and deceptive.

Quote:

---

Cohen says, "What's omitted is the fact that it was paid for by Mr. Trump or the Trump trust."
"And did you intend for it to be misleading in that way?" the prosecutor asks.
"I did," Cohen says.

---

Trump has a pen in his hand and is tapping the back of it on the paper in front of him on the desk.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger reads the line from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) statement, "The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution."
"Was that a true statement?" she asks Michael Cohen.
"No ma'am," he says.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Casual Cynic said:

---

So Cohen is now both a thief and a liar?

---

State's star witnesses are a prostitute, a thief and a liar?

---

I do wonder if the fact that there are so many of these awful people associated with Trump is going to make jurors think, "Even if I don't have the evidence, everyone here is an awful person and a criminal. If Trump worked with them, he must also be one."

Gyles Marrett said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is returning to the letter Michael Cohen's attorney sent to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2018 on the Stormy Daniels payment.
Cohen had testified under cross-examination that he said there was an "omission" in that letter, Hoffinger notes, and during direct that it was misleading and deceptive.

Quote:

---

Cohen says, "What's omitted is the fact that it was paid for by Mr. Trump or the Trump trust."
"And did you intend for it to be misleading in that way?" the prosecutor asks.
"I did," Cohen says.

---

Trump has a pen in his hand and is tapping the back of it on the paper in front of him on the desk.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger reads the line from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) statement, "The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution."
"Was that a true statement?" she asks Michael Cohen.
"No ma'am," he says.

---

---

So Trumps team doesn't get to call and expert witness on that topic but they let far from expert Cohen comment on what is or isn't a campaign contribution?

---

Trump paid it back. Obviously HE didn't consider it a contribution.

Quote:

---

I don't understand how Cohen not billing Trump for the other legal work helps the prosecutions case. To me, it implies that Trump thought of the $35,000 a month as essentially a salary, and Cohen would basically be available to do whatever the Trumps needed.

---

It doesn't help. With two lawyers on the jury, they know how attorney billings work, retainer or no. What is missing here is how Cohen handled those $35,000 monthly payments when he was Personal Attorney to Trump as POTUS?

Monthly retainers SHOULD have been deposited into Cohen's IOLTA account and then billings placed against that ammount and then he releases them from the IOLTA into his account. Those are client funds until he has done work to be charged against those funds. It would appear that he continued to treat them as a salary with no withholding and just deposited them into his accounts not his trust account. If he had not been disbarred already, that would get his ticket ipped for that alone.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan instructs the jury that they can consider Michael Cohen's attorney's letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in evaluating Cohen's credibility.

"Mr. Cohen's plea is not evidence of the defendant's guilt and you may not consider it it when determining" Trump's innocence or guilt," Merchan said.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is now pulling up the 2018 public statement Cohen released explaining the Stormy Daniels payment.

Quote:

---

The letter ends saying "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump."

---

Hoffinger asks if the statement is largely false. Cohen says it was.
Cohen confirms it was misleading in the same way as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) letter by leaving out Trump and just saying the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization.
He again confirmed that he intended it to be misleading.

---

Quote:

---

Did Mr. Trump approve the substance of these false statements by you?" prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asks Michael Cohen.
Cohen replies, "Yes ma'am."
"Under the circumstances of this NDA with Stormy Daniels that you testified to, was it perfectly legal under those circumstances?" Hoffinger asks.
"No ma'am," Cohen says.
Cohen confirmed he pled guilty to charges in 2018 on campaign finance violations related to the payment.

---

Quote:

---

So Trumps team doesn't get to call and expert witness on that topic but they let far from expert Cohen comment on what is or isn't a campaign contribution?

---

OR did that open the door for more testimony from the FEC expert? A fair judge would likely rule it does and modify their earlier ruling restricting Smith's testimony.

Merchan will not because he is not a fair judge here.

Will the jury charge define 'campaign contribution?'

And, if not, how hard will the squirming be when the jury comes back and asks for the definition of campaign contribution?

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen testified that the former president's trial is different from his own situation in 2018 because he said his "life was on the line, my liberty, and here, I'm just a non party subpoenaed witness."
Cohen pled guilty to charges in 2018 on campaign finance violations related to the Stormy Daniels payment.
Earlier, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked, "I know it may feel like you're on trial here after cross-examination but are you actually on trial," Hoffinger asked.
"No ma'am," Cohen said.
Judge Juan Merchan overruled an objection from defense attorney Todd Blanche. Trump smiled at this and did another stretch.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen again confirms he never put together a retainer agreement for Trump when he left the Trump Organization and became Trump's personal attorney, "because I never expected to get paid."

Cohen added, "You're an employee it's not necessary," Cohen said.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is moving quite quickly through her redirect of Michael Cohen to help rehabilitate him, CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid said.

Quote:

---

"This is similar to how they tried to rehabilitate Stormy Daniels. They moved through very quickly. They didn't try to match point-for- point, punch-for-punch with the defense. She made her point there and then very quickly moved on to the next issue," Reid said.

---

Reid added that the prosecution believes that "this is the best way to rehabilitate their witnesses; don't get dragged down into the weeds, just got back to the point, try to rehabilitate and move on."

---

Quote:

---

Did 420,000 have anything to do with legal services" in 2017, Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked.
"No," Cohen said.
When you submitted each of your 11 invoices to the Trump Organization stating each was for services rendered pursuant to a retainer, was that true or false, Hoffinger asked.
"False," Cohen said.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Will the jury charge define 'campaign contribution?'

And, if not, how hard will the squirming be when the jury comes back and asks for the definition of campaign contribution?

---

Good question, assuming the jury gets that far. Merchan will have to call both sides, read the question and ask for argument on what his response should be. My guess is that Merchan sidesteps that jury question with no explanation over howls of protest from the defense.

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen again said he never retained Bob Costello and never paid him any money.
"I didn't like the way he kept invoking Rudy Giuliani and my concern was anything I would say to him would go immediately back to President Trump," Cohen said.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger entered into evidence a waiver Cohen signed in February 2019 with the Southern District of New York, stating that he did not sign a retainer and did not believe his communications with Costello were subject to attorney-client privilege.
Cohen read the statement in court.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger moves on to the text messages, emails, audio recordings obtained from Michael Cohen's cell phone.
She confirms with him that he turned his phones over voluntarily and was advised all the material would be copied by prosecutors and turned over to the defense team.
More on this: Trump's lawyers have suggested at trial that Cohen's phones have been tampered with and he could've likely deleted materials from them.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger brought up Michael Cohen's fake AI cases in his briefing last year, asking whether he intended to mislead anyone by doing the Google Bard searches.
"No," Cohen said. He's now explaining what he did to generate the fake cases.
"After I just copy and pasted the first three, because they were on point, I sent them over to my lawyer's office to review and incorporate into the document," Cohen said.
"I was just trying to be helpful," he adds, noting he does not have access to WestLaw or Lexis Nexis.

---

Lunch break.