pacecar02 said:

---

These Jury instructions are gonna be a damn mess

The only crimes that have been adjudicated are the ones that Cohen plead guilty to

Had they not been going after him for other issues would he have coopt that plea and fought that charge? Moot at this point and they would have nailed him for something else


1000percent Cohen enacted most of this scheme to get back under Trumps Favor, he desperately wanted to be wanted.

If Trump was hiding things, it wasn't from anyone in his company, definitely had a past history of "capture and kill" that predates any Whitehouse bid

No one tried to cheat the Tax Man here except for maybe Daniels

---

Your statement,"1000percent Cohen enacted most of this scheme to get back under Trumps Favor, he desperately wanted to be wanted." is correct and is being ignored completely by the corrupt prosecuting attorneys.

Robert Costello: It was Cohen's idea to 'take care of this'
This was a fascinating interview and helped me understand the complete corruption the prosecution is perpetrating. They should be disbarred and likely should be indicted.

aggiehawg said:

---

By all rights, Merchan should call the state attorneys to account after the lunch break and before Cohen retakes the stand and the jury comes back.

He should admonish them that they are not helping their case here and are getting dangerously close to a directed verdict, on many of the counts that directly involve Cohen's actions in creating what he considered were false invoices to Trump and the Revocable Trust.

But no.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan just told the jury that they are breaking early for lunch today.
He's instructing them to keep an open mind. "I'll see you at 2:15," he says.
Michael Cohen will return to the stand and prosecutor Susan Hoffinger will resume her round of questions after the break.

---

An open mind? About what, exactly?

---

Does it invade the province of the jury for a trial judge to instruct jurors to 'keep an open mind' with regard to the testimony of a witness?

A novel question indeed.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger moved to discuss a call at 8:02 p.m. ET to Keith Schiller's phone, which was a big moment from Thursday during the defense's cross-examination of Michael Cohen.
Hoffinger is seeking to admit into evidence a photo of Trump and Schiller, when Trump attorney Todd Blanche objected.

The jury was excused to discuss the issue outside of their presence.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said there are two photos taken on October 24 at 7:57 p.m. "which shows that they're together."

Blanche said he never asked or implied that Schiller wasn't with Trump. "What we argued and implied that the phone call that was made was to Keith Schiller about a completely different topic than what was testified to on direct," he said.

They're arguing over whether the photos are admissible.

---

That is what they are reduced to? That Trump's bodyguard was near Trump? That's something the jury can't figure out?

Straws...grasping...you know the rest.

aggiehawg said:

---

By all rights, Merchan should call the state attorneys to account after the lunch break and before Cohen retakes the stand and the jury comes back.

He should admonish them that they are not helping their case here and are getting dangerously close to a directed verdict, on many of the counts that directly involve Cohen's actions in creating what he considered were false invoices to Trump and the Revocable Trust.

But no.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan just told the jury that they are breaking early for lunch today.
He's instructing them to keep an open mind. "I'll see you at 2:15," he says.
Michael Cohen will return to the stand and prosecutor Susan Hoffinger will resume her round of questions after the break.

---

An open mind? About what, exactly?

---

Did jurors put up their notes or some other body language after hearing the star witness stole from the defendant to make the judge say something like that?

Quote:

---

Does it invade the province of the jury for a trial judge to instruct jurors to 'keep an open mind' with regard to the testimony of a witness?

A novel question indeed.

---

Not sure. Since the defese has not yet presented their case there is an argument that he intended to wait for that before reaching conclusions? Arguable, I guss.

But I want to come back that is Merchan's deputies and bailiffs who are having the most interraction with the jury. And they are keeping the judge abreast of what they are seeing and hearing among them.

Quote:

---

Did jurors put up their notes or some other body language after hearing the star witness stole from the defendant to make the judge say something like that?

---

No idea. But were I on that jury I would have been hard pressed not have a very noticeable eye roll when Cohen testified he stole $60,000 from the Trump Org because he felt cheated out of his bonus and did some "self-help."

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Has there been a full trial day where someone on here didn't point out a fatal legal defect in this case?

---

No. The defects have been self evident since the day the indictment dropped.

Quote:

---

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.

---

There's another type of retainer where a client pays an attorney $X per month simply for "services rendered." But in most states it is unethical not to have a retainer or fee agreement spelling that out in detail and how much of the attorney's services are available for that flat amount. Didn't I read in one of your earlier posts that Cohen testified that he had no retainer or fee agreement with Trump?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

There's another type of retainer where a client pays an attorney $X per month simply for "services rendered." But in most states it is unethical not to have a retainer or fee agreement spelling that out in detail and how much of the attorney's services are available for that flat amount. Didn't I read in one of your earlier posts that Cohen testified that he had no retainer or fee agreement with Trump?

---

I think I remember it being discussed that NY allows for that though.

Quote:

---

One of the photos prosecutors want to introduce is pulled from the C-SPAN archives of a rally from October 24.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche argues this is inadmissible as evidence because prosecutors did not follow the rules of evidence by issuing a subpoena to C-SPAN as prosecutors did for the other material earlier in the trial.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says that the photo shows that Keith Schiller and Trump walked off the stage together at 7:57 pm, ahead of the 8:02 pm phone call in question.
Steinglass said Trump and Schiller walked off the stage at 7:57 pm.
"Who knows what they're going to say in their summation. We're entitled to establish and I realize it's not wholly responsive to … what happened on that phone call," Steinglass said.
Blanche added that the C-SPAN record custodian didn't authenticate information on the website, only what was in the archive and says a paralegal from the DA's office cannot properly authenticate the photos in testifying that they found the photos on the website.

Quote:

---

"It seems neither here nor there because we all have Google but the rules of evidence still applies," Blanche said. "They should've brought the witness back," he added, suggesting that the prosecutors knew they were likely to introduce these photos into evidence.

---

Steinglass said it's an exercise in futility to question the C-SPAN custodian again but says they could fly him out for two questions to lay the proper foundation to admit the exhibits.
"That's not the way the rules of evidence work," Blanche argued.

---

Quote:

---

Judge says he believes Trump and Schiller photo is relevant but he's going to think about heresy
After the prosecution and defense argued for and against admitting into evidence a photo of Donald Trump and Keith Schiller, Judge Juan Merchan said he believes the photo is relevant but he is going to think about heresy.
The court is taking a lunch break.

---

LOL. That's the quality of the CNN reporters. Then again heresy may be a more apt description of this trial overall.

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen answered the prosecution's questions on redirect on Monday morning for just under an hour before breaking for lunch. Here are the key points.
There was no retainer agreement: Cohen testified the $420,000 he received was a reimbursement and that he never actually sent a legal retainer agreement to ex-Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg, contrary to what Trump's signed checks stated. "There was no legal work that I was to be paid for," he said. "There was no representation agreement within which to send."

Quote:

---

Cohen explains Red Finch payments: Part of the $420,000 payments to Cohen was a reimbursement for $50,000 to Red Finch for tech services. As Cohen explained, Trump had been polling low in a CNBC poll and was upset, so Cohen reached out to Red Finch, which said they could create an algorithm to boost his results in the poll. He ended up at number 9 in the poll.

---

"Despite cheating," Trump felt he didn't get his money's worth for the work, Cohen said. CNBC ended up not moving forward with the poll, "and so (Trump) didn't feel he had gotten the benefit" for the services they had provided.
Cohen explains stealing from Trump Org.: Under cross-examination, Cohen testified he was reimbursed $50,000 for payments to Red Finch but only paid them back $20,000, effectively stealing from the Trump Organization. On redirect, explained that he did so because he was upset about getting a surprisingly low annual bonus.
"I was angered because of the reduction in the bonus, and so I just felt it was almost like self-help," he said.
He admitted it was wrong to do so.
Cohen says Trump approved false statements: Cohen confirmed that parts of a letter he sent to the Federal Election Commission and a public statement about the Stormy Daniels hush money payment were false and intended to be misleading.
"Did Mr. Trump approve the substance of these false statements by you?" Susan Hoffinger asked.
"Yes, ma'am," Cohen said.

---

What's the federal statute of limitations on money laundering. Cohen admits he structured his cash withdrawals over a couple of days which would be to avoid the bank filing a Currency Transaction Report to the government.

oldcrow91 said:

---

What's the federal statute of limitations on money laundering. Cohen admits he structured his cash withdrawals over a couple of days which would be to avoid the bank filing a Currency Transaction Report to the government.

---

Irrelevant because there is no way the government will prosecute Cohen for anything else. He's a tool for the fascists.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

What's the federal statute of limitations on money laundering. Cohen admits he structured his cash withdrawals over a couple of days which would be to avoid the bank filing a Currency Transaction Report to the government.

---

Irrelevant because there is no way the government will prosecute Cohen for anything else. He's a tool for the fascists.

---

yeah, Cohen is just chum after this

No value left, only to a prosecutor that might want an easy win, depends though. What was in his deal?

Interesting comment on the idea of paying polling companies to tweak their algorithms so that a candidate looks better. How likely do we think that happens? Either party. Would be just another reason that any polls have to come with a huge amount of skepticism.

SwigAg11 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

There's another type of retainer where a client pays an attorney $X per month simply for "services rendered." But in most states it is unethical not to have a retainer or fee agreement spelling that out in detail and how much of the attorney's services are available for that flat amount. Didn't I read in one of your earlier posts that Cohen testified that he had no retainer or fee agreement with Trump?

---

I think I remember it being discussed that NY allows for that though.

---

It is not so much the law as it is rules of professional responsibility. The ethics questions. Lawyers should throughly paper their transctions with their clients with retention agreements (agreeing to reprsent a client) fee structures, conflict letters, and the like. That is ust as much protection for the lawyer than it is for the client, BTW. That applies to outside counsel, not inhouse counsel.

Cohen started out as in effect inside counsel on salary with a bonus structure to which he agreed. That relationship changed when Trump became POTUS. But Cohen did not make the corresponding changes to his accounting practices required when he was the personal attorney for Trump and Trump was not running the Trump Org anymore.

Let's just say Cohen was a very sloppy unethical attorney who abused his attorney client relationship in a plethora of manners.

Soros funded DA’s office now arguing about getting a photo of then candidate Donald J. Trump and Keith Schiller from the evening of October 24, 2016 admitted.

Blanche pushes back that they never argued that President Trump and Schiller were together that evening, just that there…

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

(read the rest of the tweet)

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Interesting comment on the idea of paying polling companies to tweak their algorithms so that a candidate looks better. How likely do we think that happens? Either party. Would be just another reason that any polls have to come with a huge amount of skepticism.

---

Rogan had a guy on last year that confirmed exactly that.

oldcrow91 said:

---

What's the federal statute of limitations on money laundering. Cohen admits he structured his cash withdrawals over a couple of days which would be to avoid the bank filing a Currency Transaction Report to the government.

---

Quote:

---

Bank fraud is a federal crime that occurs when people use illegal means to obtain money or assets from a bank or related financial institution. It also can involve scenarios where a person pretends to be a bank for the purpose of getting a person's deposits or investments.
There are many ways that bank fraud can occur:

• Money laundering: Involves taking large amounts of illegal funds and them through a legal business to make money look like it was earned legally. Money laundering is frequent in the illegal drug trade and organized crime.
• Stolen checks: Criminals open bank accounts under fake identities and get blank checks from an organization, entity, or person. Employees may steal blank checks from their companies. Then, they fill out blank checks and put them in fake bank accounts.
• Forged checks: After finding a lost check, the person may try to change the check recipient to deposit it in their account or cash it.

Other Crimes Related to Bank Fraud
Other federal crimes are directly related to bank fraud:
Accounting Fraud
This federal crime involves modifying, falsifying, or tampering with information in a company's accounting records. Criminals may alter the accounting books to make it look like the company is worth more or less than it is. Some companies may use falsified books to make investments. Others may commit accounting fraud to complete loan applications.
A well-known accounting fraud example is Enron. The company was found guilty of falsifying its accounting records to make it look profitable each quarter while it was deep in debt.

---

Quote:

---

According to 18 USC 1344, the statute of limitations for bank fraud at the federal level is 10 years after the offense occurs.

---

LINK

Oopsie!

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

What's the federal statute of limitations on money laundering. Cohen admits he structured his cash withdrawals over a couple of days which would be to avoid the bank filing a Currency Transaction Report to the government.

---

Irrelevant because there is no way the government will prosecute Cohen for anything else. He's a tool for the fascists.

---

Cohen could admit to a murder on the stand and he's not going to get charged with anything as long as he keeps pushing the feds orange man evil narrative.

Quote:

---

Blanche pushes back that they never argued that President Trump and Schiller were together that evening, just that there was not enough time in the call to bring up what the witness first said. Also, that the witness changed his testimony.

Blanche adds that it's the same here-say arguements that the tweets have, which the Trump defense team wanted to add that Merchan would not allow.

Let's see if Merchan changes his tune on this one…it appears that he'd have to violate his original here-say conclusion to allow the prosecution to add this. Will he go with his precedence or will he bend to rule with the ADA?

---

The rest of that tweet.

Let's go back to the bank fraud that Cohen admitted to this morning. On recross, Balche should come back to that and ask Cohen if he knows what the SOL is for federal bank fraud?

Does he have any agreement with the SDNY regarding those potential charges? Has he directed his attorneys to make any overtures towards the SDNY regarding those potental issues?

aggiehawg 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.

---

Or, to be consistent, the judge will just say: what Trump did was a campaign finance violation.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

There's another type of retainer where a client pays an attorney $X per month simply for "services rendered." But in most states it is unethical not to have a retainer or fee agreement spelling that out in detail and how much of the attorney's services are available for that flat amount. Didn't I read in one of your earlier posts that Cohen testified that he had no retainer or fee agreement with Trump?

---

I think I remember it being discussed that NY allows for that though.

---

It is not so much the law as it is rules of professional responsibility. The ethics questions. Lawyers should throughly paper their transctions with their clients with retention agreements (agreeing to reprsent a client) fee structures, conflict letters, and the like. That is ust as much protection for the lawyer than it is for the client, BTW. That applies to outside counsel, not inhouse counsel.

Cohen started out as in effect inside counsel on salary with a bonus structure to which he agreed. That relationship changed when Trump became POTUS. But Cohen did not make the corresponding changes to his accounting practices required when he was the personal attorney for Trump and Trump was not running the Trump Org anymore.

Let's just say Cohen was a very sloppy unethical attorney who abused his attorney client relationship in a plethora of manners.

---

Can we all just agree that if there was an ethical way to handle something related to all of this and unethical way to handle something related to all of this, the unethical approach was what was chosen? Outside of Hope Hicks, everyone else called has been proven to be a total POS, even if they were doing everything legally.

Now what of all that constitutes a crime on Trump's part?

More from CNN:

Quote:

---

What to know about the alleged October 2016 payment to Stormy Daniels

Prosecutors and the defense have been zeroing in on the hush money payment at the center of the case, with Donald Trump's lawyers trying to poke holes at Michael Cohen's testimony.
According to prosecutors, on October 27, 2016, Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to her attorney through a shell company in exchange for her silence about an affair she allegedly had with Trump in 2006.
Trump has publicly denied having an affair with Daniels and denied making the payments.
Prosecutors say Daniels first brought her story to American Media Inc., whose executives brought the story to Cohen on Trump's behalf.

According to prosecutors, Trump directed Cohen to delay making the payment as long as possible, telling him if they delayed paying until after the election they could avoid paying it at all.


The former president has been accused of taking part in an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election and an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, which included the payment to Daniels.
Prosecutors allege that Trump allegedly disguised the transaction as a legal payment and falsified business records numerous times to "promote his candidacy."

---

Clear he wasn't thinking about campaign finance issues there.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

What's the federal statute of limitations on money laundering. Cohen admits he structured his cash withdrawals over a couple of days which would be to avoid the bank filing a Currency Transaction Report to the government.

---

Irrelevant because there is no way the government will prosecute Cohen for anything else. He's a tool for the fascists.

---

I fully expect if Trump wins the WH, one of his requirements for the new DOJ will be to find charges they can bring against everyone involved in this. Trump isn't going to let this one go.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

What's the federal statute of limitations on money laundering. Cohen admits he structured his cash withdrawals over a couple of days which would be to avoid the bank filing a Currency Transaction Report to the government.

---

Irrelevant because there is no way the government will prosecute Cohen for anything else. He's a tool for the fascists.

---

I fully expect if Trump wins the WH, one of his requirements for the new DOJ will be to find charges they can bring against everyone involved in this. Trump isn't going to let this one go.

---

That's why the question to Cohen about did he have any financial interest in this case is interesting. He tip toed around that but the real question does he have much to gain or lose depending on the outcome of the 2024 election. The current regime has his back. All of this by his is because he's terrified of Trump winning again in 2024 and what that could mean for him.

aggiehawg said:

---

More from CNN:

Quote:

---

What to know about the alleged October 2016 payment to Stormy Daniels

Prosecutors and the defense have been zeroing in on the hush money payment at the center of the case, with Donald Trump's lawyers trying to poke holes at Michael Cohen's testimony.
According to prosecutors, on October 27, 2016, Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to her attorney through a shell company in exchange for her silence about an affair she allegedly had with Trump in 2006.
Trump has publicly denied having an affair with Daniels and denied making the payments.
Prosecutors say Daniels first brought her story to American Media Inc., whose executives brought the story to Cohen on Trump's behalf.

According to prosecutors, Trump directed Cohen to delay making the payment as long as possible, telling him if they delayed paying until after the election they could avoid paying it at all.


The former president has been accused of taking part in an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election and an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, which included the payment to Daniels.
Prosecutors allege that Trump allegedly disguised the transaction as a legal payment and falsified business records numerous times to "promote his candidacy."

---

Clear he wasn't thinking about campaign finance issues there.

---

One could argue that he was, because if they wait until after the election, and they come out with the story it doesn't hurt his campaign. It would still hurt his marriage/family, though, so if Trump doesn't care if it comes out after the election, then he only cares about this not affecting his campaign.

Of course, one could also argue that after the election Stormy's story has no value anymore, and thus she wouldn't be bringing it forward.

I've never followed a real case before (only read legal novels), but what amazes me is that both sides keep bringing up all of these pieces of information that takes them right up to the line they need to cross, and then they stop short, expecting the jury to make that leap on their own. Neither side is being explicit about what happened, although I would say the defense was explicit in showing that Cohen lied and stole from Trump. Maybe that's normal for a case, but it seems to me that you would want to clearly connect A to B to C so even an idiot understands the point you are making, like they do in a movie.

Even if the feds or NY do not pursue criminal charges against Cohen for his admitted-under-oath embezzlement and fraud, I'm assuming Donald J. Trump can bring a civil suit against him now?

The only evidence stating Trump made payments with intent to hide the funds or influence the election come from Cohens testimony.....I don't know how a reasonable person can rely on anything Cohen says as a matter of fact or record

He is the single source of that information

Quote:

---

I've never followed a real case before (only read legal novels), but what amazes me is that both sides keep bringing up all of these pieces of information that takes them right up to the line they need to cross, and then they stop short, expecting the jury to make that leap on their own. Neither side is being explicit about what happened, although I would say the defense was explicit in showing that Cohen lied and stole from Trump. Maybe that's normal for a case, but it seems to me that you would want to clearly connect A to B to C so even an idiot understands the point you are making, like they do in a movie.

---

Competent prosecutors do that. Then it is up to the defense to attack the indiidual links in tha chain forming that narrative. Sometimes the timing doesn't work with witness availability and you have to take a witness out of order to keep the narrative/timeline going in as much of a straight line as possible, though.

Here, the prosecution has had jarring breaks between the type of witnesses they are calling and the amount of time they spend on extraneous matters.

Combination of if-you-can't-dazzle-them-with-brilliance-baffle-them-with-BS and the lawyer adage that if the facts are not on your side, pound the law. If the lw is not on your side, pound the facts. If neither are on your side, pound the table.