Adam Klasfeld Profile picture
Aug 6, 2019 23 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Good afternoon from New York.

Inside New York Supreme Court to cover a hearing in Michael Cohen's civil suit against Trump demanding that the president underwrite his legal expenses.

Hearing starts in 10 minutes.

Background, @CourthouseNews courthousenews.com/michael-cohen-…
@CourthouseNews More specifically, the defendant is Trump Organization LLC, which is represented by Marc Mukasey, Giuliani ally and son of former AG Michael Mukasey.
@CourthouseNews Judge Joel Cohen kicks things off by asking about the Trump Org's alleged oral agreement to indemnify Cohen in July 2017, well before the FBI’s raid on his home, hotel and office threw both men into legal jeopardy.

He notes it's chronologically "nebulous."
Judge Cohen: "How can an agreement like that pass muster?"

Service advisory note: Wrangling over contractual matters is by nature, a bit technical. Will try to simplify and report in real time.
The arguments are over this motion to dismiss by the Trump Org. iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentD…
Cohen's attorney notes that, even though the agreement was allegedly struck long before the raid, it originated from the same special counsel investigation.

"It's one and the same," he said.
Judge Joel Cohen appears skeptical that an oral agreement from two years ago can extend indefinitely to cover Cohen's then-unanticipated prosecution in SDNY and related congressional probes.

"I think that is the hardest question you have: How does that contract survive?"
Michael Cohen's attorney says that discovery will show documents shedding light on the scope of the indemnification.

Justice Joel Cohen asks how he knows that.

Michael Cohen's atty claims they know about invoices and emails demonstrate that.
Style note: In SDNY, which I usually cover, U.S. District Judges are "judges."

In New York Supreme, judges are "justices." Switching to the appropriate honorific from here on out.
Justice Cohen: You have to show something from them acknowledging that there is something of an actual agreement.
Justice Cohen turns to Trump Org's attorney Mukasey, stating what he calls the "blindingly obvious" fact that they deny a contract existed.
Mukasey mocks the notion that Trump Org's Alan Garten agreed to an open-ended indemnification of everything including Cohen's prosecution, congressional investigation and back taxes.

"I don't think that the law as I understand it requires you to suspend disbelief," he says.
Justice Cohen pushes back that contractual indemnifications can be very broad.
Mukasey proffers a hypothetical.

"I can agree to take you out to dinner," he said.
"Not anymore, you can’t," the justice deadpans.
Mukasey disputes that an agreement essentially says that all legal expenses, all costs are covered without duration.
A lot of back-and-forth arguments about New York's statute of frauds, requiring that certain contracts be memorialized in writing.
Mukasey: "A writing saying 'We agree to pay your bill' does not suggest the existence of a contract."
Justice Cohen grills Mukasey on whether to green light discovery

"Maybe if there was more smoke," Mukasey says, searching for the file would be justifiable.
Mukasey gives a new riff on an old expression: "How many lawyers can dance on the head of a bill?"

Justice Cohen lightly chuckled at the one, muffled by his hand.
Michael Cohen's counsel reviews the vast scope of the case: prosecution, congressional testimony, and 70 hours of interviews.

"The stakes here are incredibly high," he says.

Justice interjects: "We’re here for a more pedestrian kind of matter. This is about who pays the bills."
Justice Cohen reserves decision.
(For context: This appeared to be a reference to Mukasey’s earlier hypothetical. “Bill” can refer to a dinner bill or anything.)
Hearing is over. No ruling.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam Klasfeld

Adam Klasfeld Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KlasfeldReports

Sep 5
Good morning from Washington, D.C.

After a long hiatus, Trump’s election subversion case is slated for another status conference.

The scene outside the courthouse this morning.

I’ll cover the proceedings live at 10 a.m. ET. Image
"All rise."

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan takes the bench.

Proceedings are about to begin.
For the gov't: Prosecutor Thomas Windom
For the defense: John Lauro

Judge Chutkan: "It's been almost a year. You look rested, Mr. Lauro."

Lauro cracks that life seemed "meaningless" without seeing the judge.

Chutkan: (laughter) "Enjoy it while it lasts!"
Read 31 tweets
Aug 27
NEWS:

Jack Smith just filed a superseding indictment against Trump.

Prosecutors say the new indictment "reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States."

Doc storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Note for those unfamiliar:

A superseding indictment replaces an existing indictment.

There are no new charges in today's indictment against Trump here, only the same four leveled against him in connection with the 2020 election, tailored to pass the Supreme Court's new test.
Today's news does, however, mean that another grand jury that did not see the evidence earlier put their stamp on the same charges.

On a quick glance, the latest indictment is shorter, and nixes DOJ-related claims that wouldn't have survived the immunity ruling.
Read 5 tweets
Jul 11
Just in:

Trump's lawyers filed a motion to vacate his 34 felony convictions and dismiss his New York indictment.

In the wake of SCOTUS's immunity ruling, they argue that certain testimony and evidence shouldn't have been introduced at trial, like the categories shown here. Image
DA Bragg's deadline to respond to Trump's arguments is July 24.
A few thoughts on this:

Trump's lawyers are not just challenging his convictions, based on the alleged use of "official-acts evidence."

Since prosecutors brought some of this evidence to the grand jury, they want his indictment thrown out too.
Read 4 tweets
Jul 2
Trump's sentencing in New York has been postponed in the wake of the SCOTUS immunity decision.

Justice Merchan has rescheduled it for Sept. 18.

Doc nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre…
Image
Explainer

Trump's lawyers agree that he isn't immune from prosecution in his N.Y. case, but they argued before trial that prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to use evidence tied to his official acts.

In April, Merchan rejected that motion as "untimely." nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre…
Image
On appeal, Trump's lawyers must argue:

* Merchan had it wrong that Trump brought his motion too late.

* That Trump's tweets and other records from the time of his presidency shown to the jury were "official acts."

* Prosecutors wrongly used that evidence to convict him. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 23
Just in

On Friday, Trump's lawyer argued that ex-AG Bill Barr only appointed Senate-confirmed US Attorneys as special counsel.

Jack Smith just contradicted that in a supplemental briefing showing three of Barr's special counsel picks from 1991 and 1992. Image
In the same briefing, Smith provided a list of statutes that appear to use "officials" to include inferior officers who don't require the advice and consent of the Senate.

It's quite long, and it rebuts Team Trump's claim that "officials" means something else.
Image
Image
Judge Cannon invited prosecutors to file this brief backing up their arguments defending the special counsel's constitutional authority at the end of Friday's proceedings.

You can read it in full here.

documentcloud.org/documents/2477…
Read 4 tweets
May 30
Justice Merchan:

"We, the jury, have a verdict."
The judge announced he was going to excuse the jury before he received and read that jury note.
Alina Habba enters the courtroom and sits in the front row.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(