Reality Check said:

---

So as Costello was miraculously able to get this statement out and on the record before the jury

Quote:

---

Costello testified that Cohen lamented to him, "I don't understand why they're trying to put me in jail" over nondisclosure agreements, and disclosed that he'd arranged one with Daniels.

But, Costello said, Cohen told him Trump "knew nothing" about the hush money paid to the porn actor.

"Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times," Costello testified.

---

…. then ALL 12 jurors have to believe every Cohen lie over Costello's very brief, very detailed testimony in order to convict Trump, correct?

I mean, I learned back in October 1995 to never trust a jury of partisan imbeciles to do the right thing, but ALL 12 believing Cohen over Costello?

How is that possible?

---

I admit, I didn't really understand all the business with Costello. I don't understand how all of the emails about Rudy Giuliani matter. To me, once you got Costello to say that Cohen told him this was all BS, why didn't the defense just end the conversation? I don't get why all of the other stuff they were asking him mattered.

Also, it would be hard to get the prosecution to refute that. It basically becomes a he said, she said, and I don't see how you can say Cohen is more believable.

Question for the lawyers, is there any way the judge can dismiss the case in a way that would allow for it to be retried? It seems like double jeopardy would be in play, but I am wondering if there is some technicality he can use to basically reset things if he knows this case is losing.

Not a lawyer, but he could declare a mistrial, allow Costello to go off the rails in front of the jury

Reality Check said:

---

So as Costello was miraculously able to get this statement out and on the record before the jury

Quote:

---

Costello testified that Cohen lamented to him, "I don't understand why they're trying to put me in jail" over nondisclosure agreements, and disclosed that he'd arranged one with Daniels.

But, Costello said, Cohen told him Trump "knew nothing" about the hush money paid to the porn actor.

"Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times," Costello testified.

---

…. then ALL 12 jurors have to believe every Cohen lie over Costello's very brief, very detailed testimony in order to convict Trump, correct?

I mean, I learned back in October 1995 to never trust a jury of partisan imbeciles to do the right thing, but ALL 12 believing Cohen over Costello?

How is that possible?

---

Did that actually get on the record for the jury?

Edit: It's hard to tell what is in record of the reporting from today. There were a lot of sustained objections around the time Costello was discussing Cohen talking about that first conversation in the hotel. I'm assuming that if it's sustained, then Costello's testimony will be stricken from the record?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Rebecca Mangold, the prosecutor who told Merchan they were trying to contact Browning, had her phone out as she exited the courtroom.

According to his testimony from April 30, Browning lives in Thibodaux County, Louisiana, which is west of New Orleans.

---

Merchan is bending over backwards for the prosecution here.

---

I wouldn't say backwards...

Quote:

---

I'm assuming that if it's sustained, then Costello's testimony will be stricken from the record?

---

Only if Merchan grants a Motion to strike or strikes on his own. Getting an objection sustained is not enough. (The transcript will still have the words spoken)

Catching up on todays fireworks. WOW!! Just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier!


If this were normal venue, I don't see how a conviction would happen. But it's Manhattan. I have no faith or hope they will get this right!

Casual Cynic said:

---

So it just comes down to whether the jury can believe Cohen talked about both subjects in 96 seconds?

---

Well, it's not like he'd lie about something like THAT...

aggiehawg said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

And was also willing to recess the trial for a day to allow the prosecution the courtesy of flying in another witness that they didn't handle properly to begin with.

What a ****ing joke.

---

Nothing funny about this anymore.

Normally when a lawyer forgets to get something in with a foundational witness it is too bad so sad. Deal with it.

Merchan's career as a judge should be over after this. The state board on Judicial Conduct will have to open an investigation.

---

His daughter will make it worth it...

How will the attorneys in the jury view Costello

I didn't read his resume spoken into the record, if it was, that alone is pretty solid

Mostly because I think being an ass can be funny, but if I were the defense, I would call Neal Degrasse Tyson to the stand as an expert witness. Then I would have him walk through how the space time continuum works to explain why falsifying documents in 2017 can have no effect on the outcome of the election in 2016.

/7 but While judge wouldn’t let me testify on meaning of law, he allowed Michael Cohen to go on at length about whether and how his activity violated FECA. So effectively, the jury got its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!

— Brad Smith (@CommishSmith) May 20, 2024

For Brad Smith's full thread

@Gus_Zalinsky Hi! you can read it here: https://t.co/F856UuM7kI Share this if you think it's interesting. 🤖

— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) May 21, 2024

AustinAg2K said:

---

Question for the lawyers, is there any way the judge can dismiss the case in a way that would allow for it to be retried? It seems like double jeopardy would be in play, but I am wondering if there is some technicality he can use to basically reset things if he knows this case is losing.

---

Sure. Declare a mistrial. Can be retried, in theory.

This case? Nearly impossible if the called the same witnesses. They would immediately be impeache by their earlier testimony.

And the prosecution has no one else they could call, except Weisselberg or Schiller. That would not go well for them either.

jt2hunt said:

---

How will the attorneys in the jury view Costello

---

As an old school law guy. If those two lawyers have ANY ethics at all (Manhattan, who knows/) they wil not feel comfortable with how Merchan treated him today.

Let him answer the question. State objected too many times, in my view.

aggiehawg said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

How will the attorneys in the jury view Costello

---

As an old school law guy. If those two lawyers have ANY ethics at all (Manhattan, who knows/) they wil not feel comfortable with how Merchan treated him today.

Let him answer the question. State objected too many times, in my view.

---

Not only did they object too often they were objecting before the question was even fully asked

Fat Black Swan said:

---

/7 but While judge wouldn’t let me testify on meaning of law, he allowed Michael Cohen to go on at length about whether and how his activity violated FECA. So effectively, the jury got its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!

— Brad Smith (@CommishSmith) May 20, 2024

---

I do feel like the defense has made a mistake by not focusing more on the dates of the alleged fraudulent documents, especially in the motion to dismiss. They've focused on calling out Stormy and Cohen to be listed liars, but even if they are all telling the truth, the dates of the documents ruin the prosecution's case. To my knowledge, the prosecution has never made the claim that the documents were intentionally filed late. They have only claimed they were miscategorized as legal payments. It seems a pretty easy argument to make that since the documents were filed after the election, then they could have no bearing on the election. If the documents had been labeled, "Hush money payments" it would have no bearing on the election in the past. Using that logic, it's clear they were not to cover up anything for the election. There were a couple of times they touched on it, but I would have hammered it home more. I assume they will in closing.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

9:30??

Man, I need judges' hours.

---

Not necessarily. This isn't his only case. I'd wager his real hours are likely between 7:30 AM and 6:30, maybe 7 PM everyday.

And he is supposed to be working on the his version of the jury instructions. So he's not sitting back in his office with his feet on his desk drinking a single malt and popping bon bons into his mouth.

---

Considering the prosecution's version will probably be the one adopted, why wouldn't he drink that single malt and eat bon bons...

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo is now up for the prosecution and arguing that several documents corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony, namely the records brought in through Jeffrey McConney "memorialize" the reimbursement plan.
Colangelo says "at minimum a reasonable juror could conclude the invoices, the ledger entries, the signed checks with check stubs all contain false information."
The prosecutor now says that there is also an "overwhelming record of concealment" that supports an intent to defraud on Trump's part.

---

---

Based on this theory, who is being defrauded???

AustinAg2K said:

---

Fat Black Swan said:

---

/7 but While judge wouldn’t let me testify on meaning of law, he allowed Michael Cohen to go on at length about whether and how his activity violated FECA. So effectively, the jury got its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!

— Brad Smith (@CommishSmith) May 20, 2024

---

I do feel like the defense has made a mistake by not focusing more on the dates of the alleged fraudulent documents, especially in the motion to dismiss. They've focused on calling out Stormy and Cohen to be listed liars, but even if they are all telling the truth, the dates of the documents ruin the prosecution's case. To my knowledge, the prosecution has never made the claim that the documents were intentionally filed late. They have only claimed they were miscategorized as legal payments. It seems a pretty easy argument to make that since the documents were filed after the election, then they could have no bearing on the election. If the documents had been labeled, "Hush money payments" it would have no bearing on the election in the past. Using that logic, it's clear they were not to cover up anything for the election. There were a couple of times they touched on it, but I would have hammered it home more. I assume they will in closing.

---

That line of argument can be refuted by saying that Trump ordered Cohen to make the payment to hide the payment on fec disclosures then Trump would repay him after the smoke of the election blows over.* Easily refuted by Smith being allowed to testify that trump had 45 days to report so it didn't actually matter.

* cohen would likely say whatever he could to get Trump. If the prosecution asked him if Trump assassinated Franz Ferdinand to start WW1, cohen would say Trump planned the entire war to lead to the rise of Hitler

Mr Mojo Risin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo is now up for the prosecution and arguing that several documents corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony, namely the records brought in through Jeffrey McConney "memorialize" the reimbursement plan.
Colangelo says "at minimum a reasonable juror could conclude the invoices, the ledger entries, the signed checks with check stubs all contain false information."
The prosecutor now says that there is also an "overwhelming record of concealment" that supports an intent to defraud on Trump's part.

---

---

Based on this theory, who is being defrauded???

---

Under their theory? The American people. Cuz you know…no politician has ever tried to bury negative stories about them.

Quote:

---

The prosecutor now says that there is also an "overwhelming record of concealment"

---

Is 'overwhelming record' some new legal standard we've never heard about?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

The prosecutor now says that there is also an "overwhelming record of concealment"

---

Is 'overwhelming record' some new legal standard we've never heard about?

---

Hit yourself in the head with a hammer a few times, put on a blindfold, drop acid, and smoke a few bowls. Then you will start to understand the prosecution's theory of the case and how well they're doing

If this goes the way some people think it's gonna go then it's the most egregious case of all time.

Name a case bigger than this case, and also name a case more egregious than this case.

They 4-weeks in to trial and nobody can articulate the prosecution's theory of the case.

Nobody on here knows what's going on with this case either. If they did someone would've explained it by now.

Trump as a criminal defendant is entitled to a competent defense; and you can't do that when the prosecution hasn't clearly articulated their theory of the case.

Fair notice is fundamental.

And people often forget that.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

If this goes the way some people think it's gonna go then it's the most egregious case of all time.

Name a case bigger than this case, and also name a case more egregious than this case.

They 4-weeks in to trial and nobody can articulate the prosecution's theory of the case.

Nobody on here knows what's going on with this case either. If they did someone would've explained it by now.

Trump as a criminal defendant is entitled to a competent defense; and you can't do that when the prosecution hasn't clearly articulated their theory of the case.

Fair notice is fundamental.

And people often forget that.

---

Only thing close to this clown show was the OJ trial and this one isn't even televised. But social media has been the play by play and this thing is just nuts

I was flipping around stations driving into work this morning. It's fascinating how differently the news outlets view this case. CNN's take was that Costello was acting like a petulant teenager while under examination and that he offered nothing at all in terms of discrediting Cohen.

My bold prediction…this case doesn't go to the jury…

Either an outright dismissal, or the judge declares a mistrial…

I think the judge gave more than enough latitude to the prosecution to try to get their conviction, but even he knows he can't undo Cohen admitting to stealing money from Trump, the obvious look of Cohen's own embezzlement, and then the fact that Cohen's own attorney was able to say out loud that Cohen was unhinged and swore up and down that Cohen told him that he did the whole thing without Trump's knowledge…

I think the easy off-ramp fpr the judge here is mistrial…but any legal scholar knows this whole thing is a sham, and with Manhattan not being able to "get him", the jig is up…

D's will now pivot to focusing on who they can slide onto the ballot to replace Biden as this Hail Mary attempt has failed…

If this case does indeed go to the jury, and I am 100% wrong, be very very afraid of what America has become…a banana republic with kangaroo courts…

I haven't followed this closely at and am just stopping by this thread. Is the overall consensus that the prosecutions main goal isn't really to win, as much as to waste Trumps time and make him look bad?
It seems like everyone knows they have a weak case but can drag it out for a long time. There's no doubt that after the election all of his legal troubles will go away, one way or another.

Agzonfire said:

---

I haven't followed this closely at and am just stopping by this thread. Is the overall consensus that the prosecutions main goal isn't really to win, as much as to waste Trumps time and make him look bad?
It seems like everyone knows they have a weak case but can drag it out for a long time. There's no doubt that after the election all of his legal troubles will go away, one way or another.

---

I think that was about 90% of it. They also know their stacked jury gives them a 91.3% chance of guilty because, well, Trump did stuff because a documented serial liar says so. That was just icing on the turd cake because ANYWHERE else, this case was not brought to trial or would have lasted two days.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Agzonfire said:

---

I haven't followed this closely at and am just stopping by this thread. Is the overall consensus that the prosecutions main goal isn't really to win, as much as to waste Trumps time and make him look bad?
It seems like everyone knows they have a weak case but can drag it out for a long time. There's no doubt that after the election all of his legal troubles will go away, one way or another.

---

I think that was about 90% of it. They also know their stacked jury gives them a 91.3% chance of guilty because, well, Trump did stuff because a documented serial liar says so. That was just icing on the turd cake because ANYWHERE else, this case was not brought to trial or would have lasted two days.

---

How can a jury be "stacked" when Trump's lawyers approved the selection?

Kool said:

---

I was flipping around stations driving into work this morning. It's fascinating how differently the news outlets view this case. CNN's take was that Costello was acting like a petulant teenager while under examination and that he offered nothing at all in terms of discrediting Cohen.

---

No surprise that CNN continues to be a leader in the fourth estate's conglomerate of mouthpieces for the Democrat party.