The Manhattan DA’s grand jury is meeting today but reportedly not about the Trump investigation. Before you conclude that Costello wounded Cohen and that Bragg and co. are now desperately regrouping, pause to consider Trump’s “truths” of last night. 1/
I’ll say it again: Trump’s Truth Social posts are his biggest tell, revealing his frustration & fury about facts not yet evident to us. One key example? He attacked GA election workers Ruby Freeman & Shaye Moss right before the Fulton County special grand jury report was done. 2/
He also reiterated every awful, allegedly defamatory thing he said about E. Jean Carroll on the eve of being deposed in her case, leading to a second and arguably much stronger case for her. 3/
And that leads me to this morning. My better angels remind me to watch what they do, not what they say. But what Trump says is often a pure id-fueled distillation of what he knows and fears, and we can only guess. 4/
And today, his screed starts, “WHY WON’T BRAGG DROP THIS CASE?” before devolving into amped-up accusations laced with anti-Semitism & anti-Blackness plus outright charges of fascism. To me, that suggests whatever the reason for the delay, it’s not going to help Trump. FIN
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For Gen X fans of the Choose Your Own Adventure books, here’s a visual way of thinking through potential charges (and problems with them), courtesy of @AshaRangappa_. 1/
I might also add, as a possible second crime underlying a felony falsification of business records charge, either bank fraud or conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Why? 2/
Because, with apparent encouragement/coaching from Weisselberg and/or Trump, Cohen fraudulently opened a home equity line of credit and drew down on it to pay Stormy before Trump started reimbursing him months later. 3/
There is so much focus right now on whether Michael Cohen, who testified twice last week before a Manhattan grand jury and could do so again today, is credible. Yes, Cohen’s account & whether grand jurors believe him matter. But fixating on him also ignores how NY law works. 1/
NY criminal procedure law provides a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of an “accomplice,” who can include someone never charged with the same crime and/or immune from prosecution. Instead, prosecutors must have “corroborative evidence.” 2/
CPL 60.22 also defines an accomplice witness as someone who “may reasonably be considered to have participated in … the offense charged;” or “an offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged.” 3/
And an answer from @nytimes that makes sense: Robert Costello, who once served as an intermediary between Trump and Cohen before Cohen flipped. nytimes.com/2023/03/19/nyr…
Costello is no stranger to those of us who follow Trump world and its legal machinations. Most recently, his firm sued his former client Steve Bannon for hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid legal fees.
Might this explain Stormy's meeting with prosecutors from the Manhattan DA's office earlier this week? Given when and how prosecutors surface attorney conflicts of interest, it definitely could.
I'll defer to my former prosecutor friends, but my understanding is that potential conflicts of interest can be and sometimes are discussed with a target or witness's counsel in advance of indictment. But there's no action that can be taken until the case is charged. 2/
But after indictment, prosecutors will identify a perceived conflict for the judge and ask for a resolution. Why? Because conflicts implicate a defendant's constitutional right to counsel, and prosecutors want a clean, fair trial with as few avenues for appeals as possible. 3/
A few days ago, I speculated that the Manhattan DA’s office might be looking at New York Election Law 17-152, which prohibits conspiracies to promote the election of a particular person to public office through unlawful means. And I suggested there were benefits to that path. 1/
After all, whether a charge of falsification of business records in the first degree can be predicated on the defendant’s intent to commit or conceal a *federal* crime seems uncertain. Section 17-152 might avoid that problem. But what if DA’s case does rest on a federal crime? 2/
Joe Tacopina, for one, seems to believe it does. On @TheBeatWithAri last night, he argued Trump’s reimbursement of Cohen was not a campaign finance violation. And because presidential campaigns are governed by federal campaign finance law, it was clear that’s what he meant. 3/
At today's preliminary injunction hearing, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk "applauded the 'excellent, superb' arguments from both sides, saying it was a 'smorgasbord of appellate-grade work.'" 1/
Kacsmaryk seems to have an appellate court fetish. At last Friday's conference, Kacsmaryk asked the parties not to publicize today's hearing to avoid "any unnecessary circus-like atmosphere of what should be more of an appellate-style proceeding." 2/
But hearings like today's should not be like oral argument at a federal appeals court. The 5th Circuit requires courts to consider questions of fact and law in resolving preliminary injunction motions. 3/