Thread by @TylerMcBrien

It’s a misty morning here at 100 Centre St for DAY 18 of Trump’s NY criminal trial.

This morning, Cohen is back on the stand.

I’ll be reporting it all alongside @AnnaBower for @lawfare.

Join me, won’t you? 🧵⚖️

We already have some good line content, thanks to @JayShams ⬇️

https://twitter.com/jayshams/status/1791078600302526819

Did Cohen give the prosecution what they needed? Did Todd Blanche rip Cohen to shreds on the first part of the cross?

Catch up on the first episode of The Michael Cohen Show ahead of today's sequel in my dispatch w/ @AnnaBower @katherinepomps & Ben Wittes
lawfaremedia.org/article/michae…

The past few days of court have drawn some high profile supporters in Trump's entourage: Vivek Ramaswamy, JD Vance, Tommy Tuberville, Nicole Malliotakis, and Mike Johnson (though he didn't step foot in the courtroom).

Who will sit in Trump's row today?

Per the hallway pool, more elected officials have joined Trump's support group, a new one today: Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

At 9:22 a.m., the prosecution is seated, with ADAs Joshua Steinglass closest to the defense table, Susan Hoffinger in the middle seat, and Matthew Colangelo to her right. Christopher Conroy and Rebecca Mangold sit just behind.

Lead counsel Todd Blanche stays stone-faced for the pool photographers, who snap away at him, Trump to his left, as well as Emil Bove and Susan Necheles.

In Trump's row, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) sits next to Gaetz, who is next to Eric Trump.

At 9:26 a.m., all rise as Justice Merchan enters.

I hear a reporter next to me say, "Let's hope Boebert doesn't start vaping."

Good morning, good morning Mr Trump, any updates to the schedule, Merchan asks.

Blanche asks to approach, and Justice Merchan stands, arms crossed, as the lawyers approach the bench, leaving Trump alone at the defense table.

While we wait for this lengthy sidebar to wrap up, why don't you enjoy a few photos I took at the start of the trial, and finally developed yesterday evening 👇

https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1791087484354371862

Trump keeps his eyes closed, moving only to scratch the side of his nose, but otherwise looking unbothered.

Boebert, Gaetz, and Eric sit quietly directly behind him.

In case you were wondering, and I know some of you are, Trump's sporting a candy apple red tie today.

Earlier in the hall, he told reporters: “Outside...looks like Fort Knox...You're not allowed to have friendly protests, we're not allowed to have anything here.”

Though Trump spoke to hallway reporters around 20 mins ago, for about three minutes, he did not answer the following questions:
- Will you testify?
- Are you worried about a conviction?
- How do you feel about the debate?

We're still in sidebar, and Blanche is giving some sort of impassioned pitch to the judge, gesticulating dramatically, bobbing his head for emphasis often.

Justice Merchan looks on from above, arms still crossed.

Sidebar continues.

Another elected official spotted in Trump's courtroom entourage: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.).

As we wait for the sidebar, many reporters in overflow have Trump's hallway statements pulled up next to the gag order, parsing whether or not his comments flirt with violating the gag order.

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1791097552206471558

More Freedom Causuers spotted in Trump's entourage: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Bob Good (R-VA).

Sidebar continues still.

The sidebar breaks up, at last. That'll be an interesting one to read when the transcript is out.

Behind Trump, Eric, Boebert, and Gaetz have played musical chairs, switching their seating order for some reason.

Also spotted: Rep. Eli Craine (R-Ariz.)

We almost have a quorum here for a Congressional session.

Blanche shows the prosecution a stapled stack of papers, flips to one, and circles something on a sheet with pen.

Thank you, your Honor, Blanche says, as Justice Merchan asks to bring in the witness.

For more on gag order violation speculation, check out @AnnaBower's thread

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1791103002629075404

Cohen takes the stand, in a dark suit and pale yellow tie, two bottles of water in front of him today. Merchan reminds him he's still under oath as he asks to bring in the jury.

A court officer hands up headsets—maybe more Mea Culpa episodes today?

Merchan starts by apologizing for keeping them waiting. "But we had to take care of some business," he says.

Second, he says they may have to sit on Wednesday, and asks them to tell the court officer on break if this will cause a hardship for them.

Good morning, Mr Cohen, Blanche starts.

We left off with Detective Jeremy Rosenberg (Manhattan DA's office), says Blanche, going back to early 2023.

Q; Did you text with him on his work phone?
A: I believe so, yes.
Q: And his personal phone?
A: Correct.

We start with phones—Cohen consented to surrendering his phones.

Blanche shows Cohen a redacted transcript—exhibit 117, not yet in evidence. Cohen puts on his reading glasses and skims.

Q: These aren't all the texts, correct?
A: So far, no.

Your honor, may we approach for a moment? asks Hoffinger.

Sidebar, again.

Sidebar over, Blanche takes down the exhibit, and instead asks to put up redacted B118, then apologizes. There's some confusion—it's B45 now for the defendant—no, sorry, Blanche apologizes again, the witness, parties, and the court.

It's a slow start to say the least.

They're texts between Cohen and Rosenberg last year.

Blanche offers it in evidence, but Hoffinger asks to voir dire—are there large swathes redacted, and therefore out of context? I believe so, says Cohen, so Hoffinger objects.

Another sidebar.

Sustained. Blanche continues—the texts you just read were around the time Cohen testified to the grand jury in this case.

You were discussing how you were going to hold Trump accountable?

Objection—sustained.

Do you recall that prior to the indictment, it was leaked?

Objection—please rephrase.

Do you recall that prior to unsealing of the indictment, the public learned Trump had been indicted?

Yes.

You learned that from reading the NYT?

Yes, sir.

Q: Rosenberg confirmed to you that the NYT article was accurate and that Trump had been indicted correct?
Objection—sustained.

Did Rosenberg confirm that it was done, to you?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question, Cohen says, shaking his head. Blanche shows him B45 again.

Rosenberg identified a newspaper article Cohen says, and Blanche asks incredulously if that's really his testimony?

Did Rosenberg tell you before the indictment was unsealed in this case that they told the NYT about the indictment before they told you?

Objection—sustained.

Q: Do you have an understanding about whether Rosenberg told you about the indictment before it was unsealed?
A: No sir.
Q: He didn't tell you before there was an unsealing in this courtroom, that "it was done"?
Objection—overruled.
A: No sir.
Q: Are you sure about that?
A: Yes

Cohen maintains that he found out about the indictment via the NYT article, not Rosenberg.

Isn't it true that Rosenberg texted you "I know you heard, nice heads up huh"—but another objection, sustained.

Blanche asks Cohen about his CNN appearance, in which Cohen called himself David vs Goliath (Trump).
Didn't Rosenberg text you "You were so sharp and confident, fantastic interview on CNN"—objection, sustained.

May we approach? Blanche asks.

No, Merchan says, exhaustedly.

Do you recall Rosenberg complimenting you about your appearance on Joy Reid?
Objection—overruled.
Yes, Cohen remembers, and says yes, correct that this is around the time he was instructed *not* to go on TV.

The headsets are going back on to listen to B46, a March 2023 Mea Culpa episode called "Breaking!!! Michael Cohen Reaction to the Trump Indictment."

(The exhibit flashed on screen for a second, probably in error, then went away.)

Cohen has an index finger on his mouth, and an arm up on the bench, as he listens intently to his own podcast.

Blanche offers it into evidence, and Merchan allows it overruling Hoffinger's objection.

"I wanna thank the Manhattan DA's office and their fearless leader, Alvin Bragg," Cohen's voice cuts in, as Blanche plays the clip for everyone now.

It's a much different sounding Cohen—frantic, showboating—a sharp contrast to the slow, even-keeled Cohen on the stand.

CORRECTION: it's a May 2023 episode

Now another 10/23/20 episode (B25) for parties, and the headphones are back on.

It sounds like a Scorcese script: "I truly fuckin hope that this man ends up in prison, it won't bring back the year I lost, or the damage done to my family, but revenge is a dish best served cold."

Blanche reminds the jury of Cohen's stint in federal prison at Otisville. Then:

Q: You believe that the work that you did, your media appearances played a role in Trump's indictment?

A: I took some credit yes. It's what I believe.

Q: You continued to call Trump various names on your podcast and even doing CNN interviews?
A: Correct.
Q: That's continued even up during this trial?
A: Correct.

Blanche shows 408A, the "horseface" truth.

BLANCHE: You responded to this truth, didn't you?

COHEN: I'm not on Truth Social Sir.

BLANCHE: On X, you responded in kind, you called him "dumbass Donald"?

COHEN: Sounds correct.

On 4/21/24 (the night before opening statements): Do you recall saying on your Tiktok that you had "mental excitement" about this trial starting?

Yes, says Cohen, and then that yes, he believes that there was a paralegal monitoring his social media at the time.

Blanche wants to talk about something prosecutors spoke about Tues: Cohen's prior testimony under oath.

Blanche says Cohen has testified under oath many times: before Congress 7 times, in a trial last fall, during two guilty pleas, etc.

Blanche asks, Was the oath that you took every single time the same oath that you took Mon morning in this courtroom? (Yes) Location doesn't change the oath? (Correct) And just because you come back the next day or two days later you're still under oath? (Yes)

As expected, Blanche starts on a path to hammer Cohen for his instances of lying under oath.

It's like watching a boxer wind up a haymaker in slow motion. We know exactly where this is going.

Q: In 2017 testimony before House Intel Comttee, that's one of the times that you have lied under oath?
A: Correct.
Q: You submitted a two-page letter before you testified, then read letter into record, and on that occasion you lied about the Moscow project?
A: Yes sir.

Blanche continues on this same path:

And there were a number of different lies? (Correct) About when you stopped the project? (Correct) The number of times you spoke to Trump? (Correct) And what was the other lie? (I don't recall, I think those were the two).

Q: After Blanche elicits lie about traveling to Russia, he says, you knew at the time you were lying under oath?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And the reason you lied was bc of your loyalty to Trump?
A: I said that, yes.

Q: And then you lied again on those same three topics a year later when meeting with the special counsel? (Yes.) You lied under oath, then you committed another felony in the meeting with—objection, sustained—and you lied again when you met with the special counsel? (Correct)

After a rocky start, Blanche seems to be picking up steam, finally finding some sort of groove.

Q: When you were sentenced, you said that you were accepting responsibility for lying to Congress (yes), but you said that the reason why you lied was your loyalty to Trump?...

A: I worked with a joint defense agreement in order to stay on message about what Trump wanted, including Mr Trump's attorney at the time.
Q: So are you accepting responsibility or blaming the joint defense agreement?
A: Accepting responsibility.

Every time I hear Joint Defense Agreement I can't help but think much it sounds like some Cold War-era anti-Soviet alliance.

Now to the FBI raid—you're not aware that Gene Freidman cooperated with them? But no, Cohen says, he was not aware at the time.
nytimes.com/2019/10/30/nyr…

Blanche tries to call Freidman Cohen's business partner, but Cohen clarifies: I leased my medallions from him—I had no profit-sharing with him, if he had losses I would not have received losses. I had no interest in his company at all. No different from leasing an apartment.

Cohen continues, Freidman had to pay Cohen a fixed monthly rate for the lease, and was obligated to pay all the expenses—all he did was lease the medallion. It's the only way to have a taxi: have a medallion affixed to the front.

You knew that Friedman was a cooperating witness? Blanche asks.

I was told that, yes, Cohen says.

That's what 'you knew' means, Blanche responds sassily.

Blanche moves to Cohen's sentencing, asking if Cohen said (under oath): In the tax years of 2012-16, I evaded paying certain taxes that I knew was not reflected on the return. He also asks about his testimony in that proceeding regarding the HLAC form.

Q: Nobody induced or threatened you to plead guilty correct?
A: As I stated previously, I was provided with 48 hrs within with to accept the plea or the SDNY would file an 80-pg indictment that included my wife. And I elected to protect my family...

Q: So you do feel you were induced to plead guilty?
A: I never denied the underlying facts, but I did not feel I should have been criminally charged.

I want to stick to my questions, Blanche says, steering Cohen back to his inquiries.

Blanche asks whether Cohen lied under oath to Judge Pauley when he said nobody had induced him to plead guilty, and a tense moment bubbles up when Cohen says "that's correct," and Blanche snaps, Can we get through this? What's the difference between yes and that's correct?

Blanche asks whether Cohen's lawyers spoke at his sentencing with Judge Pauley—they wanted Cohen to get credit for cooperating though he was not technically a cooperating witness—who ultimately gave Cohen 36 months in prison, lower than the maximum.

Q: After sentencing, you started saying that you did not commit the tax crime?
A: No sir. I said I did not believe it was a crime I should have been charged with
Q: In your book you called the tax charge bogus and 100% inaccurate?
A: I believe I should not have been charged...

...Q: I didn't ask that. In your book, you said "let me give you the real facts," and you felt and still feel that you did not engage in tax fraud but had to plead guilty to protect your family?
A: Correct

Blanche says as recently as 4/1/24 Cohen said on TikTok that the federal prosecution against him "was the most corrupt prosecution in at least the last 100 years," getting a few laughs of disbelief from the press.

Hoffinger objects to the next question—sidebar.

Blanche shows Cohen B52, a transcript of his CNN appearance from 3/23/23. During that interview, you said that you hoped the tax evasion charges would eventually come out, and the SDNY lies would be exposed?

Correct, says Cohen.

Q: You testified that you provided a lot of docs to the Manhattan DA?
A: They were part of the phone, yes.
Q: You say you want the SDNY truth to come out—have you provided any materials that the charges you pled guilty to were not correct?
Objection—sustained.

Q: You also said that Judge Pauley was corrupt?
Objection—overruled.
A: Yes
Q: And he's deceased, right?
A: Yes
Q: You think Pauley was "in on it," and you've called the SDNY prosecutors and Pauley "fucking animals"?
A: Correct

Bottom line: Cohen maintains, once again, that in the sentencing memo and ever since, he has never disputed the facts of the case, but still believes that he should not have have been charged and prosecuted.

Q: So let me ask my question again, alright? (yes sir.) You testified under oath at a diff trial that you did not commit the crimes that you pled guilty to before Judge Pauley, correct?
A: Correct.

That trial was just across Centre Street.

What do you remember testifying about back on 10/24 about the legitimacy of your conviction?

Same has he stated before—that he should not have been charged with a tax crime. Cohen's message remains consistent.

Q: When you testified under oath and pled guilty, you knew at the time you filled out the HELOC forms, were you lying?
A: I took the global plea that—but Blanche cuts in, "Please don't make a speech," then some cross-talk as Hoffinger objects. Blanche asks again.

Blanche begins to ask about Tuesday, when prosecutors asked Cohen about his Oct 2023 testimony, but it's a bit difficult to follow. I'm not sure where he's going with this.

Behind Trump, Boebert looks down at her lap, either at a phone or a piece of paper. Gaetz shifts around in his seat, and Eric watches Cohen on the stand.

The reason you lied to a federal judge is because the stakes affected you personally? (Yes) And there's no doubt that you know what perjury means? (I know what perjury means).

A few months after your guilty plea, Blanche starts, then apologizes for "jumping around."

Blanche asks about more about oaths—in fact, the cover art for Mea Culpa is Cohen taking the oath.

If you haven't caught on by now, the word of the day is OATH.

Blanche shows Cohen B518 a transcript of his Congress testimony—when Congressmen asks you questions, they can go on and on, even more than I do, Blanche jokes.

No reaction I can detect from the several Congresspeople seated just 10 feet behind Blanche when he cracked his joke.

Q: You said you were remorseful, and going to prison?
A: Unfortunately correct.
...
Q: But what you didn't say in accepting your responsibility, is that you had lied under oath?
Objection—sustained.

I should add: the other word of the day is LIE.

Q: Do you agree with me that lying under oath is not accepting responsibility?
Can you clarify your question? Cohen asks, scrunching up his face in confusion. Blanche restates.
I accepted responsibility, and I was suffering the consequences as a result, Cohen says with finality.

Blanche presses on: You lied to the judge when you pled guilty? Cohen answers: judges have a wide range of discretion when issuing guidelines.
Q: Do you think Judge Pauley would have liked to know that you had lied to him? Objection—sustained, (surprisingly)
A: I dont know Pauley

It's unclear where this is going, but Blanche seems to be arguing that Cohen was lying under oath even when he was coming clean about lying under oath.

It's lies all the way down.

Q: By the way, you've blamed a lot of people over the years for the conduct that you were convicted of?
A: I've blamed people, yes.

You blamed your accountant? (Correct) Your bank? (Correct) Fed prosecutors? (Correct) The judge? (Correct) Trump? (Correct).

Blanche changes tack slightly and asks, Does the outcome of this trial affect you personally? (Yes), then quickly backtracks to the Pauley sentencing line of questioning.

A couple reporters near me let out an audible sigh.

Back to the medallion leasing: Blanche asks about Cohen's 16 LLCs, which is standard in the industry, just good business practice?
Cohen regales us with the ins and outs of the taxi business.
Blanche thanks him sarcastically, and Cohen says you're welcome even more sarcastically.

Blanche begins to ask about when and what Cohen told his wife about the HELOC, but Hoffinger trips him up with an objection, and asks to approach.

Sidebar.

Sustained. It must have been about spousal immunity.

Blanche looks at his paper deep in thought, grabs and adjusts the mic, and asks Cohen instead about what he told Michael Avenatti about the HELOC.

Blanche eventually finds his way back to Mrs. Cohen, and her knowledge or not of what he said about the HELOC.
Q: On March 11, 2018 you deleted all your texts with your wife?
Objection—overruled. Cohen doesn't recall.

Q: Didn't you encourage some people to delete your messages with them on Whatsapp and Signal?
Cohen says Signal would do it automatically with some people like David Pecker.
And what about Sharlene Sacks, Blanche asks, do you recall telling her to delete? Cohen doesn't recall.

Now to Cohen's testimony to Congress about whether he ever requested a pardon:
False, says Cohen—I never asked for it. I spoke to my attorney about it because we had seen on TV Trump talking about pre-pardoning, so I asked my attorney if this was legit.

Blanche moves ahead 10 days from that testimony to a Feb 27 deposition, when Cohen said he directed his lawyers to explore the pardon bc it was constantly being dangled in his face—he asks whether Cohen remembers being asked to reconcile that statement and his testimony.

Again, it's unclear what's happening here, as Blanche tries to catch Cohen on some alleged discrepancies between his testimony and the deposition. These discrepancies are grammatical, semantic: his lawyers did it vs. he did it, he used present tense vs. past tense.

Maybe I'm not being clear with my question, says Blanche, I'll try to be clearer.

A few grunts of approval from the press in the gallery.

Cohen is probably wishing that Blanche would try harder, because he says again that he can't understand the question.

But Blanche's theme seems clear enough: Cohen lied under oath—a lot.

I haven't been keeping count, but my impression so far is that Merchan has been pretty even-handed with regard to Hoffinger's objections.

Many sustained, and many overruled.

As we continue to circle the drain, I can sense the morning recess approaching. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part.

The questions are a dense thicket of different lawyers, testimonies, depositions, and Cohen's lies (some still alleged, some admitted to).

Blanche leans one of his forearms on the podium as he drills question after question, his other hand punctuating each question with different gestures.

And as I predicted, Justice Merchan cuts in for the morning break.

See you in "about 15 minutes."

We're back, but the jury isn't, and Colangelo is up asking Merchan for some kind of limiting instruction based on Cohen's testimony about his knowledge of the Trump indictment before it was unsealed. Blanche says there were repeated sustained objections.

Merchan doesn't think it requires instruction from the bench—he thinks defense can clean it up, or if the People can deal with this on redirect. Colangelo stands again to say that Blanche's questions were misleading.

Merchan also says jury cannot meet on Wednesday.

Jurors are back, and Blanche gets rolling again: One of the reasons you accepted responsibility is because you wanted to explore cooperation, yes?

Cohen asks for clarification, Blanche restates, and Cohen agrees: Yes, sir.

In Aug 2018, when Cohen got to Otisville to serve his sentence, he began meeting with Manhattan prosecutors, Blanche asks.

We seem to return to the line of questioning about Cohen's attempts to reduce his prison sentence.

Even after Cohen's supervised release, he says he tried thrice to reduce his sentence.

Could it be 4? Blanche asks.

It could've been 4.

None were successful, Blanche says, but one of the times the stated reasons was Cohen's ongoing cooperation with law enforcement.

We jump back to Cohen's testimony in another trial, last Oct 24-25.

"Oh god," a reporter groans.

More questions, same theme: Cohen cooperated with law enforcement, and though he wasn't an official cooperating witness, he tried all the same to put that cooperation toward early release.

An update on Trump's row in the courtroom: much of the Congressional delegation has left, and I now see Alina Habba.

It also appears that Boris Epshteyn finally has some breathing room in his row, now that the entourage has thinned out a bit after morning recess.

After a sidebar, Blanche changes tack: Do you remember questions about your desire to work in the WH? And telling Congress that it was a lie that you did not want to go to the WH?

Blanche asks more about Cohen's WH desires—first to be Chief of Staff, then personal attorney.

Now to Nov 2016, when Cohen texted with his daughter that he still believed he could be chief of staff—but Cohen's daughter said she read that Preibus was being considered.

Kedar Massenburg, former CEO of Motown Records, officially enters the record after Cohen confirms that yes he knows him.

Q: You told people that you would like to be attorney general?
A: I don't recall.

Chief of staff, personal attorney, and attorney general—did Cohen fancy himself the next Henry Kissinger or something?

Still in Nov 2016: You don't recall telling your daughter that you were with Trump, and that he was complimentary but not happy with the title you wanted—special counsel to the president?

Now to Trump's frustrations that Preibus couldn't find a good role for Cohen in the WH.

Cohen corrects Blanche about some of these conversations with his daughter: Cohen says he wanted a "hybrid" role.

Part of your frustration was that Trump's new chief of staff, a role that you wanted, was now trying to find you a job? Blanche asks.

Again, still unclear, but perhaps Blanche is offering a different narrative about how and why Cohen broke with Trump and gave up his loyalty.

Blanche is trying to poke holes in Cohen's WH staffing story: Blanche says that Cohen said on Tues that he just wanted to be personal attorney, but there are convos about being chief of staff and special counsel.

"That was for my ego, yes," Cohen says, repeating his Tues self.

A series of questions from Blanche: When Trump appointed Gary Cohn as director of the NEC you were "despondent"? At the time, you were having a hard time getting tickets to the inauguration Your daughter texted you that Trump and his people were "walking all over you"?

Q: You were disappointed that after all the work you did for Trump, nobody offered you a job in the WH?
A: That's not accurate.
Q: You were not embarrassed that after everything, you were left w/ the role of personal attorney, nothing more?
A: That's the role that I wanted.

Blanche asks whether Cohen expressed these same frustrations of exclusion to Pastor Darrell Scott (even on National Prayer Day!)

With these questions, he seems to suggest that Cohen must have expressed a great many frustrations to a great many people—not just his daughter.

Now to Sept 2023: in Cohen's application for early termination of supervised released, there were "fake cases" included, and Blanche asks Cohen to explain what happened.
Cohen used Google Bard, typed in a series of queries regarding NY 2nd Circuit decisions re: early...

...termination of supervised release, but Cohen says he got "phantom" results, because AI wants to please the user, but Cohen provided the citations to his lawyer, and those citations were inaccurate.
Q: By that time you were disbarred, but you were an attorney for 30 years?
Yes

You testified about a phone call, Blanche asks, on 10/24/16 (he adds some dramatic emphasis to the date)—do you recall testifying that you called Keith Schiller that day in order to speak to Trump to "discuss the Stormy Daniels matter and the resolution of it?"
Yes, Cohen recalls

Blanche asks how that all works: you know Schiller was with Trump so you call him? Is he on speaker, or is it a private conversation?

I've seen both, Cohen says, and he doesn't know whether it was a private call or speaker phone on 10/24/16.

Do you have any recollection of what you said to him that day? Blanche asks.

We talked about the matter, and it was resolved, Cohen says simply.

Blanche wants Cohen to act out how that conversation with Trump might have gone, but Hoffinger objects—sustained.

Did you talk about this phone call with the grand jury? Blanche asks, but Cohen can't recall.
Two more objections, both sustained.
Do you recall ever talking to prosecutors about this phone call prior to Tues?
Objection, but, finally—overruled.
I don't recall, says Cohen.

Hoffinger asks to approach, and Cohen continues to stay hyrdrated during the sidebar. He takes a swig—looks around—another swig, looks around again.

It's hard to tell exactly, but he appears to look at Trump (who has his eyes closed) and shake his head.

We continue, and Blanche shows the witness and parties B255, to refresh his memory as to whether he was asked any questions about phones call on the 24th.

As the cross grinds on, it's not clear if Blanche or Cohen has gained any ground.

Lunch is near. I can feel it.

Blanche displays People's 341, a log of calls between Cohen and Schiller, and highlights two on 10/24/16 (recall that first he got the voicemail, then a 1m36s call).

This is the call you testified about on Tues, that you called Schiller, but it was to talk to Trump about the Stormy deal—Blanche's voices is raising—and let's see what happens next. Then you texted Schiller the number, Blanche begins to say, but Hoffinger objects.

Blanche now shows texts btwn Cohen and Schiller to the jury (we can't see it yet, bc proper redactions have not been made).

It's starting to become clear: Blanche is casting doubt (credibly, I must say) that the 10/24/16 call Cohen had said was about the Stormy matter, was actually about a prank caller that Cohen received.

That was a lie, correct? Blanche fires at Cohen.

Blanche is finally picking up momentum, showing signs of life, but I wonder if he'll get derailed by lunch. Or maybe I just have lunch on the mind.

BLANCHE: You said you had a recollection of a phone call on 10/24 at 8:02pm, that Schiller gave the phone to Trump, and you talked about the funding, but THAT. WAS. A. LIE.

Cohen still doesn't budge.

Cohen says he doesn't believe this is true, or something similar, but Blanche cuts him off.

"We are not asking for you belief," Blanche says furiously, "this jury is not asking"—objection, sustained.

A reporter behind me lets out a "woah."

Q: Were you ever shown in prep the text that I had just shown you btwn you and Schiller about the harrassing phone calls?
A: No, sir.

Based upon what was going on, and based on other texts, Cohen says he believed to be telling the truth.

Q: So you weren't basing your testimony on your memory, you were basing it on documents the People showed you?
A: To refresh my memory, yes.

Phew, and that's lunch. Merchan excuses the jury, then the witness.

After a pretty slow grind to the day, the tension and drama of the cross really picked up in the last 20 minutes or so.

See you at 2:15 p.m.

As I head out for lunch, a parting message from one of the bathroom stalls on the 13th floor of 100 Centre St:

I'm back in the courtroom itself, having switched out with Ben Wittes at lunch.

But a shout out to my comrades in overflow, especially @lizadonnelly for capturing my likeness (see if you can spot me, @AnnaBower, @benfeuerherd, @ClaireMeynial, & more!)

https://x.com/lizadonnelly/status/1791096886968930669

At 2:04 p.m., the prosecution strolls back in and lays out stacks of papers, binders, and other documents on the desk.

At 2:08 p.m., Trump walks back in, his entourage in tow. Gaetz has stayed past lunch.

Three minutes later, Merchan returns.

The People had submitted instructions regarding the unsealing of the indictment, but Blanche says his intention is to rehabilitate the questions "right out of the box" after lunch, so Merchan takes a look.

Let's see how it goes with you and if it looks like we have to clean it up some more I'll read the instruction, Justice Merchan says, but Steinglass is up immediately.

The only relevance re: these questions was to show there was an improper leak (which Merchan sustained), Steinglass says, and that Cohen or Rosenberg were ngaged in that conduct. No other reason, says Steinglass—this is not something to be cleaned up, but be cured by the court.

Blanche is back up now, he thinks it's entirely appropriate to elicit that a detective assigned to this case told a witness that this was "done." Merchan says there was nothing inappropriate about the question and will give Blanche the opportunity to clean up the issue.

Separately, Merchan says he has been informed that one of the jurors "apparently has" a 1:30pm appointment on Thurs—he will take it up with the juror in the robing room with one attorney from each side to discuss that further.

Let's get the witness.

Cohen is back, reading glasses out, bottle of water atop the witness stand, as we await the jury.

Right out of the box, as he said earlier, Blanche starts to "clean up" the indictment-leak question.

Do you know that on 3/30, court unsealed the indictment? Correct. So what you learned or hear about the indictment on 3/30, it was unsealed, correct?

Please approach—sidebar.

We resume without a limiting instruction, so Merchan must be satisfied with the cleanup so far.

Now to Cohen's TV appearances: just to be clear when you did those interviews, the indictment had been sealed? Yes, Cohen says, he read it in the NYT.

Clean up complete it seems.

Now to a series of msgs btwn Cohen and the 14-yr-old prank texter (B165, now in evidence), where we left off pre-lunch.
Blanche shows the texts we heard about before lunch: Cohen tells the person the # was sent to Secret Service bc of harrassment. Then the person apologizes...

...claims he's 14 yrs old, and so Cohen asks the boy to have his parent or guardian contact him.

Blanche goes way back now, to the 2010 poll which Cohen said on Monday that he showed Trump, then started shouldtrumprun.com

Q: Is it fair to say that at the time the press regarded this as a bit of a stunt?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Then you worked with the Natl Enquirer, in 2011, to run a story about how strong Trump looked in the polls?
A: Yes sir.

In that story, there was a positive profile of Cohen as the person who started —Blanche says you worked very hard during your time with the Trump Org to get positive stories in the press about what Trump was doing and about Cohen himself.shouldtrumprun.com

How did that press relationship work? asks Blanche.
Cohen explains: he would reach out to reporters, ask if they're interested in a certain topic, and offer an exclusive.

Let's take the opposite, Blanche asks. What would you take, if any, to get rid of/minimize a negative story.

That's a little different, says Cohen. Instead of me calling the journalist, they would call me. Then I would immediately go to Trump's office, we'd come up w/ response.

Q: You did that a lot, right? You had a rolodex full of reporter's contact info?
A: Correct.
Q: And you didn't always have to go back to Trump to handle a story?
A: No sir.
Q: You mean you never answered a reporter w/out going to Trump?
A: It was my routine to ask him.

So over the course of 9.5 years, you never commented on a story on your own?

The initial comment, no, Cohen says. But he would often mimic the same resopnse to the next magazine, the next newspaper, and so on.

Cohen essentially says that he would always consult with Trump out of fear—fear of Trump blowing up at him, fear of him losing his job over a rogue comment, etc.

Eventually, Trump said he wouldn't run in 2011. Shortly after, Cohen says, yes, he worked with Davidson to remove the Daniels story on TheDirty.

Q: Is it fair to say that the first time you spoke to Trump about the 2011 Daniels story, he said he was concerned about his family?
A: Yes, and the brand.
Blanche asks whether Cohen threatened legal action to get that story down, and Cohen says yes—though Davidson effectuated it

Q: Some of the reporters with which you had close relationships were Chris Cuomo? Katie Tur? Maggie Haberman? Yes, yes, yes
Blanche asks only about Haberman: would you describe your relationship with her as very strong? (Yes) You asked her to write + stories about you? (Yes sir)

Cohen agrees that yes, if it was a "NYT-style" story, he would give Haberman tips, scoops.

Why did you record convos w/ reporters? asks Blanche.

For note-taking, Cohen says. For later reference to craft responses. Simple as that.

Q: When did you stop?
A: After the 2016 election.
Q: You didn't record convos w/ reporters in 2017/18?
A: I'd have to check.

We'll check together in a moment, Blanche says.
Thank you, Cohen says sarcastically.

After the pre-lunch fireworks, the post-lunch mood is fairly lethargic.

Blanche is back to a thousand cuts, rather than a big wallop.

Blanche asks about other recordings:

It's not illegal to record conversations in New York, with one-party consent, Cohen says a bit defensively.

Blanche lets out a quick laugh and says, Mr. Cohen I did not ask you whether you were breaking the law.

BLANCHE: One of the reasons you'd want relationships with reporters is to respond, to push information, to shape an article—or maybe that's not the best word, so choose the word you like—to make the article come out as favorable to you or Trump as possible?

COHEN: That's true.

When asked about what type of commication he would use with what type of reporter, Cohen says for a "private or unusual type of situation, I would go to one of the encrypted apps."

BLANCHE: And there were 95 secret recordings on your iPhone?
COHEN: Correct.

BLANCHE: Who else did you secretly record, other than reporters?
COHEN: Jeff Zucker, Trump.
BLANCHE: You understand that it's not ethical to record your client? [Trump was Cohen's client at the time]
COHEN: Yes, except of course crime-fraud exception.

BLANCHE: So you surreptitiously recorded your client so that you could play a privileged recorded communication with a third party?

COHEN: That's correct.

Blanche asks about the meeting btwn Cohen, Trump, and Pecker at Trump Tower—you said the power of Natl Enquirer is its "placement in supermarkets," did you tell the grand jury—objection, sustained—did you tell anyone about that before your testimony?
Not that I recall, Cohen says

We loop back around to where the cross started yesterday: didn't you say on Tiktok that Pecker's testimony corroborated what you've been saying for years?

That's a very general statement, says Cohen.

You said it bc the People told you about his testimony, accuses Blanche.

Now back to the (false) Dino Sajudin story—you previously told law enforcement that he was concerned about the story bc it was about people who still worked for him, worked with him, Blanche asks, his voice softening.

You testified that all along the way, you kept Trump updated, correct? (Yes sir) But what about things like the liquidation clause in the contract? (No) Those were the kinds of things you would handle as the lawyer? (Yes sir).

Blanche jumps around again—to the McDougal story now

Q: Didn't you previously tell the govt that Trump said he didn't think the McDougal story would hurt him?
A: I would need to see that document, please.

Sure, says Blanche, and shows him B127.

Someone in the gallery blows their nose loudly, and a juror looks over abruptly, perhaps startled.

The rest of the jurors keep their attention trained on either Blanche, or Cohen, or both.

Cohen relents—initially, yes, Trump didn't think the McDougal story would hurt him.

Blanche goes back to the earlier wound he opened: the 2016 phone call with Trump via Schiller's phone.

How many calls were you getting a day? asks Blanche
Hundreds, Cohen responds, and Blanche seems genuinely taken aback. Let's just say 50, conservatively, he says, then making a few back of the napkin calculations: so more than 50k phone calls between 2016 and today?

COHEN: These phone calls are ones I've been talking about for the past 6 years, they've been all-consuming, significant calls, so I remember the substance if not the timing.

BLANCHE: You mean to tell me you were talking about these calls for the past 6 years?

Setting aside the tens of thousands of calls Cohen received or placed since 2016, Blanche chooses on one: Do you have a specific recollection of the 06/16/16 call? He shows Cohen the call log, and Cohen says yes he remembers, based on the other documents.

I recalled the conversation based on the other documents.
I understand, Blanche says, but that's not what he's asking. He's asking if Cohen has a specific recollection of that conversation on that phone call on that day in June?

Now back to the surreptitious 2m51s recording of Trump, in which he says "our friend David."

Recall, Cohen says that Pecker was being considered for CEO of Time, and there was a concern about a secret box of docs that would change hands to whoever succeeded Pecker.

Blanche brings up the "hit by a bus" comment about Pecker, and asks, The concern here was even beyond the election—meaning, this conversation wasn't tied to the election? There was a real concern he could get hit by a bus?

Yes sir, Cohen replies.

Later, Cohen says Pecker told him not to worry—there was nothing int the files, and he wasn't being considered for CEO of Time anymore.

Now to the bit on the recording about "financing," when Trump said to pay in "cash." Isn't it true that when you worked for him, Trump would very often purchase things in cash? Blanche asks. He would even buy certain properties with cash, and "without financing"?

Well, yes.

That was the messaging he was giving, Cohen says, that Trump is very rich, so he can pay cash.
Blanche wants even more clarification to hammer the point home—when he says cash, Trump doesn't mean "green," as you testified?

Cohen says he was talking about paying by check—and Blanche, seeing an opening, jumps in: isn't that the point right when the recording cut off?

The recording cut off bc I got a phone call, Cohen says calmly.

Blanche changes tack, and asks slowly: What phone was that recording on?

It was one of the two phones, Cohen replies, still calm.

Blanche tacks back to the recording, showing the transcript cutting off right at "Check."

Just so I understand, Blanche continues evenly, you're in a meeting with Trump about the financing or cash with the McDougal story, but the bank calls, and you just answer that call? What was it about? ...

...Cohen first says he can't recall, then ventures a guess that it was probably about identify theft he was subjected to at the time.

Blanche sees another opening: so you do recall or you don't recall?

He seems a bit sharper now, more focused.
You sure about that? he adds.

Blanche picks at another inconsistency: you use encrypted apps, but some of the most key communications were just on text right? And the documents—the NDA itself—were just emailed back and forth?
Between myself and Mr Davidson, yes, Cohen says.

We stop there for afternoon recess.

Merchan excuses the jury, and asks an attorney from each side to join him in the robing room, I assume to discuss the juror's Thursday 1:30pm appointment.

Trump and co. exit, and we break for 10 mins.

At 3:24 p.m., Trump walks back in with Blanche at his elbow, smiling with him, seeming happy with his performance—but that's just my own speculation.

Merchan returns to fill us in on the conference. Steinglass says let's wait and see where we're at, not promise the jury yet they can leave at 1pm. That makes sense to Blanche—if it comes to it, we can address it that afternoon.

Merchan agrees. Let's get the witness.

I want to talk for a minute about the $130k you made to Mr Davidson, Blanche starts.

Finally.

Q: You learned along the way that another news org wanted to buy the story yes? At what point did you hear that?

A: When we failed to transfer the $130k as per Davidson's cutoff date.

Q: It was ABC correct?

A: Yes.

You learned that ABC had offered about the same amount of money you were going to pay? (Yes) Who was the reporter—setting aside whether it's true or not, Blanche adds quickly—you learned this from?

John Santucci, Cohen says, after blanking on his name first.

Do recall saying to Pomerantz that Davidson on behalf of Daniels was engaging in extortion?

Objection—overruled.

Yes, Cohen recalls says that they were extorting Trump.

Blanche clarifies that Cohen reached this extortion conclusion because of the timing of the election? And you didn't pay for a while?

Yes, we went several weeks w/out paying, Cohen says.
But ultimately you did, says Blanche, promising to return to that.

Blanche continues, you called the payments hush-money, but make no mistake, this was a completely legal binding contract?

Yes sir, Cohen says, then Blanche declares confidently: Let's pull it up.

We see the NDA appear on the four screens around the courtroom.

An NDA, a settlement between two parties, happens all. the. time., Blanche asks, but it sounds like a statement.
Yes they do, says Cohen.

Now the pseudonyms—or pseudo-names, as Cohen would pronounce it—who came up with Peggy Peterson and David Dennison?

Mr Davidson, says Cohen

You were a lawyer at the time, Blanche begins to ask, but Hoffinger stands: "May we approach."

Sidebar.

Cohen takes a gulp of water, scans the gallery, then tries to smile in the direction of the jury.

Blanche resumes: you testified that for your work with the Trump Org, you reported directly to Pres Trump?

Yes sir.

And for the org, you did legal work?

Cohen thinks for a second. No, not much legal work.

Cohen agrees that he would work on "new projects," including the Apprentice—and that was for the Trump Org? asks Blanche.
No, I don't think the Apprentice would be for the Trump Org.

Cohen's other duties incl. legal work for Don Jr, possibly Ivanka, and Melania—and you never had a retainer agreement with any of those individuals, and the reason was you didn't need one bc you were employed by the Trump Org, and that you didn't have to worry about getting paid?

Q: The truth is, for the entire time you worked for the Trump Org, you never had a retainer agreement?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you were acting as a lawyer that whole time?
A: Well I did legal matters and non-legal matters.

Blanche's line of questioning here seems clear: for Cohen's tenure at the Trump Org, he did some legal work at least, but never had a retainer, and there's nothing wrong or unethical with that.

Now we see what I think is Cohen's letter in response to a Common Cause FEC complaint—Blanche begins to read it, and asks: Cohen paid the money, and Trump reimbursed you from his personal account?

Either from his own funds, or the trust, Cohen clarifies.

The FEC complaint was sealed, Blanche clarifies, and yet Cohen showed the "sealed" complaint to some reporters. Cohen was angry, even said he might seek sanctions, and was sick of defending himself from "frivolous allegations."

Blanche displays Cohen's statement at the time, the one in which he wrote: Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump.

I was validating the statement I had sent out with that paragraph, Cohen says. I wanted them to believe that it was true.

Did you tell them it was true?

I called them and told them my statement was true, Cohen confirms.

Hoffinger objects about a line of questioning about Cohen lying to his lawyers (sustained), and Merchan says why don't we stop it right there.

He gives his usual instructions to the jury before dimissing them for the day.

The jury departs, but remember—we're not done yet.

We should hopefully get some clarification on the remaining witnesses scheduling. Hopefully...

We hear from Bove for the first time now, who wants to address the potential testimony of Brad Smith on campaign finance law: the category they want to discuss is general defintions and terms that relate to this case, such as "campaign contribution."

What has changed since Merchan's ruling: both parties put in instructions, including about FECA. Bove doesn't want to encroach on Merchan's potential legal instructions, and wants to make sure the court is still contemplating setting up what are potential "battling" witnesses.

Bove wants to touch on basic statutory defintions and some phrases w/in those definitions that they think it's important that one way or another the jury gets instructions on, whether through dueling experts or another way.

Bove would seek to elicit from Smith an interpretation of "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office," the "irrespective rule" from the FEC's regulation, and the press exemption, along with certain definitions of contribution, limits, expenditure, and others.

He continues to discuss what the defense plans to elicit from Brad Smith—trying to give the jury a sense of what the requirements are for certain terms, and how the FEC has applied them. Not hypotheticals, he clarifies, applications in practice.

The last issue is the press exemption, which has a basis in the statute, as well as the FEC's regulations, and a cited advisory opinion—"just to give the jury a little bit of content around these terms." But, he says again he doesn't want to tread on Merchan's instructions.

You believe that the biggest impetus of this is bc we have competing instructions, not the facts of the case and the way they came in? Merchan asks Bove.

Bove says he just wants everyone to be "eyes wide open" coming into Monday, which is when this testimony could come in.

Colangelo is up: 95% of the proffered testimony flies in the face of your honor's instructions, which prohibits the "interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws."

That kind of testimony from an expert is precisely why there's a general and broadly followed prohibition on this type of testimony, Colangelo says.

He mentions this is compounded by the prosecution's expert witness: "But then we have three people telling the jury what the law is," Colangelo says, stopping to gesture toward Merchan, "when there should be one."

He's not done: the possibility of any testimony on the press exemption has never been disclosed, Colangelo continues, so there's "serious notice problem" from the outset.

Colangelo rapidly adds on more arguments, so quickly that the court reporter asks him to repeat himself.

"Your honor, what Mr Bove just described is totally outside and way beyond both what your honor already ruled, and any generally accepted prohibition on expert testimony," Colangelo says by way of conclusion.

Bove stands again, pushing back calmly, gently.

The jury has to get alternate info, one way or another, as to how to apply these principles, Bove says. We don't think this jury should be evaluating a FECA violation, but we understand we lost that fight. So we want them to understand what those principles are, in a fair way.

I don't think the fact that both of you submitted jury charges necessitates changes my ruling to the motions in limine, says Justice Merchan, directing parties to pgs 1–3, then reads from it.

What you're asking me is to enlarge this decision quite a bit, Merchan says to Bove.

Here's the decision he was reading from: documentcloud.org/documents/2448…

Justice Merchan reads this passage from the ruling and says, Therefore, the purpose of your witness is greatly limited.

Nothing else from either side, we discuss scheduling. "I'm doing everything possible to avoid big breaks between summations, jury charge, and deliberations," says Merchan. Parties asked if we can start early and late some days, and that's possible.

Blanche says he as "not a lot" left with Cohen, and he'll be finished with the cross Monday before the morning break. For the redirect, Hoffinger estimates under an hour.

For the defense case, Blanche says he expects to reach a decision "very soon today" and will communicate that to the court. There may be rebuttal witnesses, but Blanche says it's certainly reasonable to believe that aside from Brad Smith, the other witnesses can be on and off Mon

Possibility that we'll be done with presentation of evidence of Mon, and have that pre-charge conference same day.

Merchan asks parties to be ready for summations, closing arguments, for Tuesday—and he'll try his best to keep them to one day.

Blanche still left the question open of whether Trump will testify.

As Merchan exits through his personal door, Trump and co walk out the main door, and the prosecution begins to pack up, that's it for the day.

We're on the home stretch now. It's a strange feeling: the trial has felt both lightning fast and glacial at the same time.

In any case, it's certainly not over yet, so be sure to join me, @AnnaBower, Benjamin Wittes, and @rparloff at 5:30 pm ET to unpack everything we heard here today, live on Trump's Trials and Tribulations NY Trial Dispatch:

@AnnaBower @rparloff And even when this trial does end, however soon that may be, Trump's trials and tribulations don't end with it, and neither will our coverage.

Thanks again to everyone for the continued support: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…