Good morning from 100 Centre St for what could be the final week of Trump’s NY criminal trial
I’ll be reporting it all for @lawfare, alongside @AnnaBower, @qjurecic, and Ben Wittes.
Join me, won’t you? 🧵⚖️
I’ll be reporting it all for @lawfare, alongside @AnnaBower, @qjurecic, and Ben Wittes.
Join me, won’t you? 🧵⚖️
Protesters are already here in Collect Pond Park. A woman blows a shofar and starts preaching about the bible.
A man holds up an oddly specific sign:
WHY WON’T BLANCHE CALL SCHILLER
A man holds up an oddly specific sign:
WHY WON’T BLANCHE CALL SCHILLER
A bit more color for you.
There’s nothing like the sound of a shofar in the morning.
There’s nothing like the sound of a shofar in the morning.
Spotted from the line: Rep. Trey Gowdy, the republican from South Carolina.
Our friend with the shofar is still preaching from Collect Pond Park.
Our friend with the shofar is still preaching from Collect Pond Park.
Another man in Collect Pond is protesting not the trial, but The Line. Dismayed by what he says is “cheating and cutting,” he shouts:
“There is no line integrity!”
“There is no line integrity!”
We entered court earlier than usual today, and the press is already installed in the overflow room.
Someone in the gallery whistles the Indiana Jones theme music.
For a cinematic recap of what you missed last week, read our dispatch: lawfaremedia.org/article/michae…
Someone in the gallery whistles the Indiana Jones theme music.
For a cinematic recap of what you missed last week, read our dispatch: lawfaremedia.org/article/michae…
It's another strong show of support for Trump today as we see some new faces in his ever-changing entourage (with thanks to @LibbeyDean_ for today's list)
https://x.com/LibbeyDean_/status/1792524928908169497
Out in the hallway, Trump (blue tie today) addresses the pool reporters with general complaints about the case. He says he should be out campaigning.
Lather, rinse, repeat, as I like to say.
Lather, rinse, repeat, as I like to say.
The prosecution has already raised the issue of Trump's every-changing entourage—and the involved security details that accompany some of the case of characters—with the judge on May 16. msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-…
It's an early day: both parties are already seated at their respective tables. Just before he sat down, Trump mouthed "how are you" in the direction of the prosecution team.
Pool photographers enter and snap away at Blanche and Trump, frowning as they usually do.
Pool photographers enter and snap away at Blanche and Trump, frowning as they usually do.
It's Monday y'all, please pardon the typos. I'm still shaking off the weekend.
*ever-changing, *cast of characters
*ever-changing, *cast of characters
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792536429974692040
At 8:45 a.m. sharp, all rise, as Justice Juan Merchan takes the bench.
Seated at the prosecution table are ADAs Steinglass, Hoffinger, and Mangold, while Colangelo and Conroy take the two seats behind them.
Alan Dershowitz is seated directly behind Trump in the first row.
Alan Dershowitz is seated directly behind Trump in the first row.
Merchan starts by thanking everyone for showing up early and wants to address over-the-weekend issues that arose.
NEWS: Justice Merchan says that it looks like we won't go to summation tomorrow.
"Unfortunately the calendar is what it is," he says.
"Unfortunately the calendar is what it is," he says.
Next issue: defense exhibits. Hoffinger says the prosecution was objecting to two exhibits, but now it's down to one, which she has a hearsay objection on.
Unclear yet what the exhibit is.
Unclear yet what the exhibit is.
It's defense exhibit 1005: an email from Costello's partner (Citron) to Michael Cohen following their initial communications.
Blanche says the email is direct impeachment against what Cohen testified on direct and cross on Tues/Thurs.
Blanche says the email is direct impeachment against what Cohen testified on direct and cross on Tues/Thurs.
BLANCHE: We're not offering this for the truth but impeachment.
MERCHAN: It would be the truth of the statement you're impeaching him with right?
BLANCHE: It depends on how he answers
MERCHAN: But how he answers it at that point the cat's out of the bag, the jury has heard it.
MERCHAN: It would be the truth of the statement you're impeaching him with right?
BLANCHE: It depends on how he answers
MERCHAN: But how he answers it at that point the cat's out of the bag, the jury has heard it.
Hoffinger rises for the counterargument: Citron's opinion is not an impeachment of how Cohen felt the meeting went, and whether it's impeachment or not, it's still hearsay. This doesn't disclose what was in Michael Cohen's mind about how he felt the meeting went.
Merchan remains firm. He mentions there's actually two layers of hearsay, and at this moment he's not going to let it in. This could be the email in question:
Nowhere in this email does it express Mr Cohen's state of mind...this is double hearsay, Merchan says with some finality.
Understood your honor, Blanche says, and mentions that he'd like to ask him questions about it and dozens of other emails. For more: nytimes.com/2019/04/21/us/…
Understood your honor, Blanche says, and mentions that he'd like to ask him questions about it and dozens of other emails. For more: nytimes.com/2019/04/21/us/…
Merchan is ready to rule on the campaign finance expert witness issue, which we discussed on Thurs.
Recall, the defense wanted to elicit testimony from Brad Smith defining three terms: influencing an election for federal office, irrespective rule, and the press exemption.
Recall, the defense wanted to elicit testimony from Brad Smith defining three terms: influencing an election for federal office, irrespective rule, and the press exemption.
Ordinarily expert testimony is admissible (e.g. DNA evidence), but an expert is not permitted to present or interpret the law—however, Merchan says it would be impossible for Smith to testify w/out interpreting the law.
The defense promised to elicit only very basic matters and at a bare minimum—however, Merchan just doesn't see how that could be possible. It falls under the umbrella of legal opinion, and could potentially lead to three conflicting sets of legal instructinos.
There is no question that this would result in a "battle of the experts," Merchan says, echoing something Emil Bove said last week.
Instead, Merchan invites both parties to continue to submit jury instructions, but he leaves it open whether he'll even issue instructions.
"The proposed jury instructions are just that: proposals," says Merchan.
"The proposed jury instructions are just that: proposals," says Merchan.
We'll hash all of this out at the charge conference.
Bove is up now to push back: defining those terms is absolutely critical for the jury to understand the government's allegations, he says.
Bove is up now to push back: defining those terms is absolutely critical for the jury to understand the government's allegations, he says.
Trump looks up at Bove as he argues, then turns his gaze forward, in the direction of the bench.
The tough spot that we're in is, your honor has not indicated a firm tension to instruct the jury on FECA, Bove says. We're restricted in what Mr Smith is saying.
The tough spot that we're in is, your honor has not indicated a firm tension to instruct the jury on FECA, Bove says. We're restricted in what Mr Smith is saying.
Bove asks Merchan again for "anything you can give us on the court's intention to instruct the jury"—citing his experience presiding over People v. Trump Org, Justice Merchan says: "When it comes to these matters, I often think that less is better."
Merchan also mentions that, as Bove knows, and that you, dear reader also know having read my @lawfare piece with @qjurecic, the prosecution does not have to prove the object offenses beyond a reasonable doubt: lawfaremedia.org/article/what-m…
Bove continues to argue his case, but Merchan maintains that the witness would be presenting the law with the authority of a legal expert—one relying on SCOTUS opinions and other legal opinions, which would not be appropriate.
BOVE: What makes this case different is the predicate for the 175.10 charge (the NY state election law) is it's only unlawful if there is unlawful activity. Otherwise, it's just agreement to win an election.
After Merchan cuts in, Bove waves his arms and continues to try to argue, but Merchan calms him down, and says "relax."
"I'm going to be consistent with my earlier rulings," Merchan says, reminding Bove that the People initially had 4 theories, and he ruled against one of them.
Colangelo stands for the prosecution and cites their Nov 9 motion to demonstrate that they briefed this theories 6 months ago.
"There's nothing new at all about the unlawful means argument," he says.
documentcloud.org/documents/2443…
"There's nothing new at all about the unlawful means argument," he says.
documentcloud.org/documents/2443…
Bc the expert witness is a lawyer, law prof, and former FEC commission, his entire experience in understanding how these terms apply/are defined is based on interpretation, Colangelo says for his last point.
Merchan maintains his ruling.
Merchan maintains his ruling.
That's done, and Blanche asks to approach about a "scheduling issue."
Sidebar. Trump turns around 180 degrees in his seat and appeared to look at or say something to Alan Dershowitz, but it was difficult to tell.
Sidebar. Trump turns around 180 degrees in his seat and appeared to look at or say something to Alan Dershowitz, but it was difficult to tell.
Sidebar disbands, and Justice Merchan calls for a short, 10-minute break, to resume around 9:30 a.m.
As we wait for the morning to resume, I overhear a reporter in the gallery say, somewhat dejectedly: "Well, it looks like we're going to be here for another week."
For Necheles and Habba, perhaps the real treasure of the first criminal prosecution of a former president is the friends we make along the way.
https://x.com/eorden/status/1792547027366056021
Spotted in the men's room during the break: one of Trump's favorite legal scholars, Jonathan Turley.
And we're back.
And we're back.
Merchan asks for one side to draft some instructions, then the other to "do the red line," and says If the two sides can agree on the definitions of these terms that's all the better. Also mentions his preference to keep it as simple as possible.
As we wait for Cohen, I'd like to say if anyone at @NYMag wants to feature a reporter covering the trial for a Grub Street Diet, at 9:26 a.m., I very glamorously shoved half a peanut butter protein bar in my mouth in the men's room.
Jury is present and properly seated, and Cohen is on the stand, a pale purple (lavender?) tie today.
Good morning, Mr Cohen, says Blanche, resuming.
Since last Thursday, how many reporters have you spoken to about what happened last week?
Good morning, Mr Cohen, says Blanche, resuming.
Since last Thursday, how many reporters have you spoken to about what happened last week?
Cohen denies speaking to reporters, then relents that some have just called to say hello, ask how I'm doing, to check in.
Blanche is skeptical to say the least.
Blanche is skeptical to say the least.
How about prosecutors, how many times have you met with them?
COHEN: More than a dozen
BLANCHE: So like more than 12, but 20 times?
COHEN: It's possible.
Cohen says he met with prosecutors as recently as 10 days ago.
COHEN: More than a dozen
BLANCHE: So like more than 12, but 20 times?
COHEN: It's possible.
Cohen says he met with prosecutors as recently as 10 days ago.
What's a question you were asked last week that you were hearing for the first time Blanche asks, but Cohen isn't sure. How about documents, you reviewed those in prep with prosecutors? That's correct, Cohen says.
You know someone named Dan Goldman?
Yes, Cohen says—he met with him while prepping for his testimony to the House Oversight Cmte.
That's one of the times you lied?
Yes, sir, Cohen says.
Yes, Cohen says—he met with him while prepping for his testimony to the House Oversight Cmte.
That's one of the times you lied?
Yes, sir, Cohen says.
Finally, we're back on track, Oct 2016, the days leading up to the hush-money payments.
Q: You agree with me that you had a lot going on both in your personal life and with Trump in those first few weeks of Oct?
A: Yes sir
Q: You agree with me that you had a lot going on both in your personal life and with Trump in those first few weeks of Oct?
A: Yes sir
Around the time, Blanche says, Cohen was dealing with some significant restructuring of his taxi medallion business, and an issue with a loan or sale related to an investment property of Cohen's.
So basically, a lot going on.
So basically, a lot going on.
More going on in Oct 2016: Cohen's work with the diversity coalition; working closely Pecker on another issue about iPayments(?); helping Tiffany Trump with a photo extortion issue.
The man had a busy month.
The man had a busy month.
Recall during Keith Davidson's testimony, he described Cohen around this time as frantic and "pants on fire."
Cohen himself also said that he would field up to 100 calls a day at this time.
It ain't easy being a fixer.
Cohen himself also said that he would field up to 100 calls a day at this time.
It ain't easy being a fixer.
Blanche pulls up B130, a text from someone named Carrie on 9/28/16—further communications on the taxi medallion issue I believe. B132 10/13/16 email, a medallion acquisition proposal.
All of this seems to further the point that Cohen was a busy bee in Oct 2016.
All of this seems to further the point that Cohen was a busy bee in Oct 2016.
Blanche asks about Friedman, to whom Cohen leased his taxi medallion, and, separately, the owner of Resolution Consultants, with whom Cohen was also in touch around this time.
Again, all this seems to suggest that Cohen had many irons in the fire around this time.
Again, all this seems to suggest that Cohen had many irons in the fire around this time.
Q: During that time period, do you recall having issues with Freidman bc of his financial situation?
A: Bc of the entire taxi industry financial situation.
Blanche says he's not interested in talking about the entire taxi industry, but I, for one, would love to do just that.
A: Bc of the entire taxi industry financial situation.
Blanche says he's not interested in talking about the entire taxi industry, but I, for one, would love to do just that.
For more on the "Taxi King" himself, and the fascinating underworld of NYC taxi medallion wheeling and dealing: nytimes.com/2021/10/25/nyr…
Just before a brief sidebar, Blanche was asking about Cohen finding Freidman a lawyer:
Back to the iPayments litigation (which we had spoken about during Pecker's testimony)—Cohen says he attempted to settle that litigation in part out of a friendship with Pecker. lawfaremedia.org/article/standa…
Blanche asks Cohen more about his work with Pastor Scott, the Tiffany Trump blackmail issue—all of which was happening the week of 10/24/16.
We zero in on two calls between Trump and Cohen on 10/26/16: Cohen testified the reason why he wanted to speak to Trump on that day was to get approval for the payments.
Do you remember what Trump was doing on that day? Blanche asks, but Cohen doesn't remember. Blanche shows B168
Do you remember what Trump was doing on that day? Blanche asks, but Cohen doesn't remember. Blanche shows B168
BLANCHE: Do you remember that morning that Trump was going to sit down for an interview with ABC News? Does it ring a bell that it was going to be with his entire family too, including Melania?
Objection—sustained, but Blanche asks again, objection again—sustained.
Objection—sustained, but Blanche asks again, objection again—sustained.
With all that going on, why focus on Stormy Daniels?
Because it was important to me, Cohen says.
Was fixing Tiffany Trump's situation important to you? Wouldn't that be someting you would update her father about?
Important yes, but no updates no, Cohen says.
Because it was important to me, Cohen says.
Was fixing Tiffany Trump's situation important to you? Wouldn't that be someting you would update her father about?
Important yes, but no updates no, Cohen says.
My recollection was that I spoke to Trump about Stormy Daniels because that was what he tasked me to take care of, and that's what I had been working on, Cohen says.
We get closer to the heart of the matter: the meeting btwn Trump, Weisselberg, and Cohen about the "retainer agreement" and the reimbursement structure.
documentcloud.org/documents/2465…
documentcloud.org/documents/2465…
Blanche asks about the Red Finch payment, of which Cohen only gave them $20k/$50k.
Cohen says he withdrew the cash over two days, and Blanche asks whether he brought a "duffel bag" of cash.
No, Cohen says. It was a small brown paper bag.
Cohen says he withdrew the cash over two days, and Blanche asks whether he brought a "duffel bag" of cash.
No, Cohen says. It was a small brown paper bag.
After that $20k you were square? asks Blanche.
He would've liked the additional $30k as well, Cohen says, with a deadpan matter-of-fact tone.
Fair, says Blanche.
He would've liked the additional $30k as well, Cohen says, with a deadpan matter-of-fact tone.
Fair, says Blanche.
We're getting some great imagery of Cohen the fixer: answering and placing dozens of phone calls a day, running around town with a brown paper bag filled with tens of thousands of dollars in cash.
In other words, "pants on fire" and frantic.
In other words, "pants on fire" and frantic.
Back to the money that Cohen pocketed, Blanche launches at Cohen: Have you paid back the Trump Org the money that you stole from them?
No sir, Cohen says.
No sir, Cohen says.
The Red Finch subplot has moved to center stage right now.
During the convo with Weisselberg to cover up the $130k payment, Blanche asks, you lied to him about how much you owed to Red Finch? (Blanche asks twice)
Correct, says Cohen.
During the convo with Weisselberg to cover up the $130k payment, Blanche asks, you lied to him about how much you owed to Red Finch? (Blanche asks twice)
Correct, says Cohen.
Q: You did steal from the Trump Org, correct?
Objection—overruled.
Again, Blanche asks, You did steal from the Trump Org, correct?
Correct, says Cohen.
Objection—overruled.
Again, Blanche asks, You did steal from the Trump Org, correct?
Correct, says Cohen.
There was never an expectation that there would be a retainer agreement, and you never had a retainer agreement for Trump, his children, etc?
Correct and correct, says Cohen.
Correct and correct, says Cohen.
Blanche starts to ask a question but stops himself—sorry, that was a terrible question.
Except for that one convo with Weisselberg, did you have other convos with Weisselberg about your role as Trump's personal attorney?
Yes sir, says Cohen.
Except for that one convo with Weisselberg, did you have other convos with Weisselberg about your role as Trump's personal attorney?
Yes sir, says Cohen.
Again, more questions about how Cohen never had a retainer agreement, never would have one in fact.
It's still unclear how this helps the defense—it would only seem to hurt their case. But let's see where Blanche goes with this.
It's still unclear how this helps the defense—it would only seem to hurt their case. But let's see where Blanche goes with this.
Had there been a meeting about a retainer agreement, it would have only been between attorney (Cohen) and client (Trump).
Another question, but a confused Cohen screws up his face and asks Blanche to rephrase, but it's so mangled that Blanche just withdraws the question.
Another question, but a confused Cohen screws up his face and asks Blanche to rephrase, but it's so mangled that Blanche just withdraws the question.
The defense submits B260 into evidence, 1/31/17 email response from Weisselberg to Cohen, re Note and mortgage modification agreement for Trump Park Ave condo—Thank you. You never stopped on for a bro hug. Anyway please prepare the agreement we discussed so we can pay you monthly
Q: Why would you have to prepare an agreement so that you could get paid monthly?
A: In order to get the reimbursement, the $35k for month
Blanche lowers his voice in a sort of "gotcha" way: But you testified that there would never be an agreement.
It's all a bit fuzzy to me.
A: In order to get the reimbursement, the $35k for month
Blanche lowers his voice in a sort of "gotcha" way: But you testified that there would never be an agreement.
It's all a bit fuzzy to me.
Blanche asks why payments would be signed by Eric and Don Jr., but we already know why: they were signatories on the Trust account.
Now we're talking email signatures: starting in 2017, Cohen signed his emails as he always had, except instead of personal attny to the CEO of Trump Org, it was to the president of the United States.
You told everyone about your new role?
Well, not everyone, says Cohen.
You told TMZ? (Yes) You gave a little scoop to the NYT? (Yes) You announced it on Hannity? (Yes)
While technically not everyone, I think it's fair to say he told most people. Cohen was a fixer—and a gossip.
Well, not everyone, says Cohen.
You told TMZ? (Yes) You gave a little scoop to the NYT? (Yes) You announced it on Hannity? (Yes)
While technically not everyone, I think it's fair to say he told most people. Cohen was a fixer—and a gossip.
We see B261: Cohen's 1/27/17 goodbye email to the Trump Org.
I'm sorry to say it reads like a pretty typical office goodbye email. Nothing too juicy there.
I'm sorry to say it reads like a pretty typical office goodbye email. Nothing too juicy there.
As personal attorney, sometimes Cohen would help out on a case, and sometimes he would help Trump find another lawyer with more expertise.
Yes sir, that was part of my job, Cohen says.
Yes sir, that was part of my job, Cohen says.
A specific case: Feb 2017, Cohen worked with Marc Kasowitz around subpoenas that had been issued, including from the State Dept — nytimes.com/2017/06/05/bus…
Now to May 2017—what effect did the appointment of special counsel Mueller have on Cohen's attorney-client relationship with Trump?
None, says Cohen, and says he played no role in selecting Kasowitz.
None, says Cohen, and says he played no role in selecting Kasowitz.
Were you happy, sad, or indifferent about Trump hiring Kasowitz?
Probably happy, Cohen says, and that he wasn't really part of that case or that work, even though he was still personal attny.
Probably happy, Cohen says, and that he wasn't really part of that case or that work, even though he was still personal attny.
Cohen did legal work for first lady Melania Trump, including an issue regarding Madame Tussauds.
Part of Cohen's job had always been, not only legal work, but helping Trump and his family with any array of issues, he says.
Part of Cohen's job had always been, not only legal work, but helping Trump and his family with any array of issues, he says.
Blanche begins to ask The retainer agreement that you entered into with Mr Weisselberg but objection—sustained.
How much were you paid every month in 2017 from Trump personally?
That would be 9 checks, $35k a piece, Cohen says. And the other two from the trust.
How much were you paid every month in 2017 from Trump personally?
That would be 9 checks, $35k a piece, Cohen says. And the other two from the trust.
You continued to get paid all 12 months, that was the agreement that was struck?
Yes, correct says Cohen.
Q: You also did a ton of consulting work in 2017? How much were you paid?
A: Approx. $4m from 6 clients.
Yes, correct says Cohen.
Q: You also did a ton of consulting work in 2017? How much were you paid?
A: Approx. $4m from 6 clients.
One client was AT&T, which paid Cohen $50k a month for "consulting and advisory work," on the issue that was taking place where they wanted to acquire TimeWarner.
Wowza. To be fair, Cohen did say he was going to "monetize" the relationship. Sounds like he sure did.
Wowza. To be fair, Cohen did say he was going to "monetize" the relationship. Sounds like he sure did.
Another client: Columbus Nova.
BLANCHE: You never told Trump that you had all these consulting arrangements?
Objection—overruled.
In fact it was Trump who introduced the CEO of AT&T to Cohen, who ended up retaining them as a client, Cohen says.
BLANCHE: You never told Trump that you had all these consulting arrangements?
Objection—overruled.
In fact it was Trump who introduced the CEO of AT&T to Cohen, who ended up retaining them as a client, Cohen says.
Another client: Novartis $100k/month in a one-year deal.
What did they get for that money? Around only 6 communications the entire year. That's $200k per communication.
I'm in the wrong business.
What did they get for that money? Around only 6 communications the entire year. That's $200k per communication.
I'm in the wrong business.
Blanche begins to ask something about "A retainer agreement with Novartis"—but Hoffinger objects, sustained.
It's a consulting agreement, not a retainer agreement.
It's a consulting agreement, not a retainer agreement.
Interesting side note from Columbus Nova's wikipedia page.
A very familiar name who has frequently made headlines recently: Benny Gantz.
A very familiar name who has frequently made headlines recently: Benny Gantz.
Another client: Franklin Haney (also introduced via Trump), re: a matter with the Tennessee Valley Authority and a nuclear power plant.
Blanche seems to be losing his audience.
Blanche seems to be losing his audience.
When the Stormy Daniels payment story broke in 2018, Cohen told many people—Melania, several reporters on the record, others—that Trump knew nothing about it.
We see B1006: a 4/23/18 email from Costello to Cohen—"Michael I spoke with the person you asked me to and he said that he would find out exactly how the matter ended up in the SDNY and in paticular who in Main Justice approved this"—the "person" = Rudy Giuliani.
This was right after the FBI search warrant—Cohen only later found out they were looking at bank records, "among other things."
Freidman, Mr. Taxi Medallion, was part of the probable cause that led to the warrant.
Freidman, Mr. Taxi Medallion, was part of the probable cause that led to the warrant.
B1008 now: 5/15/18 email Cohen to Costello—"You can always reach out to me directly but under no circumstances do I want anyone communicating on my behalf with anyone else."
Q: Would it surprise you to learn that you communicated with Costello on the phone 75 times?
A: Seems excessive but—[he pauses]—possible.
Q: Would it surprise you to learn that you spoke over 9 hrs over the course of a few months with Costello?
A: No sir.
One call lasted 1h30m.
A: Seems excessive but—[he pauses]—possible.
Q: Would it surprise you to learn that you spoke over 9 hrs over the course of a few months with Costello?
A: No sir.
One call lasted 1h30m.
As we get bogged down in more questions about Costello, we're back to the typical confusing style of the Blanche cross: scattered questions, jumping around in time, unclear where we're heading.
It's a slow start, to say the least.
It's a slow start, to say the least.
We see B1013, an email from Cohen to Costello, 6/14/18, re: a Wapo article, "Trump’s campaign to discredit Michael Cohen is already underway"
Cohen writes: "Since we are sharing this morning...they are again on a bad path."
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/w…
Cohen writes: "Since we are sharing this morning...they are again on a bad path."
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/w…
Another now, B1014, from Cohen to Costello:
The answer about why they haven't brought an action challenging Mueller, His investigation and the Michael Cohen referral and investigation based upon the findings of the IG (Horowitz) report.
The answer about why they haven't brought an action challenging Mueller, His investigation and the Michael Cohen referral and investigation based upon the findings of the IG (Horowitz) report.
This is consistent with the types things Cohen and Costello were discussing at the time, Cohen says.
Finally some good news: it's @JayShams' birthday! Can we get a "Happy birthday Jacob" in the replies?
https://x.com/JayShams/status/1792573470070456416
We backtrack to Cohen's income from consulting—$4m—and Blanche asks about the $420k, which Cohen calls "reimbursement."
Oh we know what your view is on that, Blanche snaps at Cohen.
Objection from Hoffinger.
Oh we know what your view is on that, Blanche snaps at Cohen.
Objection from Hoffinger.
Q: How much is the most money you've ever made in an 18-month period of your life?
A: More than $5 million.
Q: How did you make money btwn pleading guilty and publishing your book?
A: I did not.
A: More than $5 million.
Q: How did you make money btwn pleading guilty and publishing your book?
A: I did not.
Though he had no income during that time, Cohen paid tax "deficiencies," legal fees, and living expenses.
In Fall 2020, faced with mounting costs and few job prospects, Cohen did what so many New York men have done before him, and will continue to do: he started a podcast.
In Fall 2020, faced with mounting costs and few job prospects, Cohen did what so many New York men have done before him, and will continue to do: he started a podcast.
Q: You're also pitching a TV show based upon your life?
A: Not my pitching it, but there is a television show.
The proposed name of the show is FIXER.
A: Not my pitching it, but there is a television show.
The proposed name of the show is FIXER.
Justice Merchan, in all of his grace and mercy, cuts in: we're gonna take a 10-min break.
And not a moment too soon: I still have half a protein bar, so I'm headed to the bathroom to finish my meal.
And not a moment too soon: I still have half a protein bar, so I'm headed to the bathroom to finish my meal.
I desperately need this show to get made.
thewrap.com/trump-fixer-mi…
thewrap.com/trump-fixer-mi…
In another sad example of the mainstream media spreading misinformation, I have been informed that it is not @JayShams' birthday.
To be fair, he did spice things up during a grinding, soul-sucking cross, so we forgive him.
To be fair, he did spice things up during a grinding, soul-sucking cross, so we forgive him.
It's 11:35 a.m., and the parties are back. Bove takes a seat to Trump's right, Blanche to his left, as Necheles leans over Blanche to say something to Trump.
All four are in animated conversation now.
All four are in animated conversation now.
As a reporter pointed out to me on break, the $50k RedFinch reimbursement was part of the $180k that was "grossed up." So that could mean that if Cohen only gave $20k to RedFinch, he essentially "stole" $80k from the Trump Org.
Also spotted in Trump's entourage today: Chuck Zito, former president of the New York chapter of the Hells Angels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Zito
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Zito
Merchan back, Cohen back, jury back. We're back.
Excellent—Blanche returns to the proposed show about Cohen's life, "The Fixer."
Cohen says he's also considering a third book, though he's not in negotiations to get paid for it though.
Excellent—Blanche returns to the proposed show about Cohen's life, "The Fixer."
Cohen says he's also considering a third book, though he's not in negotiations to get paid for it though.
You "actually" said that you're considering a run for Congress," Blanche asks, and Cohen confirms.
Apparently, it's true: ny1.com/nyc/all-boroug…
Apparently, it's true: ny1.com/nyc/all-boroug…
The plan?
Primary Nadler.
Primary Nadler.
Back to Cohen's role as personal attorney to Trump:
You Trump trusted you? Yes. His family trusted you? Yes. His wife trusted you? Yes.
Part of your job was to give him counsel and discuss legal issues with Trump?
But Hoffinger asks to approach—sidebar.
You Trump trusted you? Yes. His family trusted you? Yes. His wife trusted you? Yes.
Part of your job was to give him counsel and discuss legal issues with Trump?
But Hoffinger asks to approach—sidebar.
When did you view your attorney-client relationship w/ Trump as ending?
Objection—sustained.
Objection—sustained.
Now some math from Blanche: Going back to the $420k you were paid, Blanche restarts, the "Stormy Daniels payment" was $130k and the $20k to RedFinch adds up to $150k, and the remainder was grossed up + the bonus.
You didn't claim that $35k on your taxes—objection, sustained.
You didn't claim that $35k on your taxes—objection, sustained.
We resume discussing the exorbitant amounts of money Cohen made during much of the past decade, as an underpaid, overworked press corps has to report it.
Q: If Trump is convicted that would benefit you personally, financially?
A: No sir.
Q: Then what is your financial interest in this case?
His personal interest, Cohen clarifies, is that he talks about the case on his podcast and TikTok.
A: No sir.
Q: Then what is your financial interest in this case?
His personal interest, Cohen clarifies, is that he talks about the case on his podcast and TikTok.
Blanche asks again: would you financially benefit if Trump is convicted?
"It's better if he's not, for me, because it gives me more to talk about in the future," Cohen says unironically, getting a respectable laugh from the press.
"It's better if he's not, for me, because it gives me more to talk about in the future," Cohen says unironically, getting a respectable laugh from the press.
Blanche asks: Isn't it true that you're willing to lie under oath if it affects you personally? and mentions that Blanche testified to that previously. But Hoffinger objects—sustained.
You would lie under oath out of loyalty, correct?
Objection again—sustained again.
You would lie under oath out of loyalty, correct?
Objection again—sustained again.
Blanche rephrases: When you lied to Congress, you said it was out of loyalty to Trump—so restating that, it's true that you would lie out of loyalty?
Yes, sir, says Cohen.
Yes, sir, says Cohen.
After a couple of similar questions, Blanche ends somewhat abruptly.
No further questions he says. Before the People redirect, parties approach the bench—sidebar.
No further questions he says. Before the People redirect, parties approach the bench—sidebar.
To be fair to Mr. Cohen, this is giving the media quite a lot to talk about as well.
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792584636452700320
Hoffinger begins redirect.
She starts with Blanche's question about whether Cohen testified falsely in Congress in 2019—did you testify truthfully in Congress in 2019? (Yes, ma'am, it was 2017 when he lied, his initial answer was a mistake.)
She starts with Blanche's question about whether Cohen testified falsely in Congress in 2019—did you testify truthfully in Congress in 2019? (Yes, ma'am, it was 2017 when he lied, his initial answer was a mistake.)
Another clarification: defense asked whether Cohen discussed other matters with Trump on 10/26/16, in addition to the Daniels issue. He didn't have a "specific" recollection of other matters, but he does remember the Daniels matter bc it was important to him (yes ma'am.)
Blanche objects—overruled.
Next, about how busy Cohen was in Oct 2016.
Weren't you busy all the time, not just then? Correct.
Were you too busy to finalize the payment? Were you too busy to get Trump's approval to make that payoff? No and no, ma'am.
Next, about how busy Cohen was in Oct 2016.
Weren't you busy all the time, not just then? Correct.
Were you too busy to finalize the payment? Were you too busy to get Trump's approval to make that payoff? No and no, ma'am.
Q: Why wasn't there a retainer?
A: There was no legal work I was to be paid for, there was no representation agreement.
Q: Did the reimbursement have anything to do with a retainer agreement?
A:No ma'am.
A: There was no legal work I was to be paid for, there was no representation agreement.
Q: Did the reimbursement have anything to do with a retainer agreement?
A:No ma'am.
Did the $420k reimbursement payments have anything to do with legal work you did for Trump or his family? (No ma'am.)
Now to the consulting agreements: did you ever tell Trump that you'd work for only him? Objection—overruled.
No ma'am, Cohen says.
Now to the consulting agreements: did you ever tell Trump that you'd work for only him? Objection—overruled.
No ma'am, Cohen says.
Back to RedFinch, we get more info on why Cohen hired them: a CNBC poll regarding the most famous businessman "in like the last century"—at the beginning of this poll he was polling toward the "very very bottom." Through the acquisition of IP addresses, RedFrinch said they...
...create an algorithm to raise Trump in the polls. Trump wanted to end up as number 1, but Cohen and RedFinch thought that would be too suspicious, so they settled on Top 10.
Kind of like when you're cheating on a test, everyone knows to flub some it to make it believable.
Kind of like when you're cheating on a test, everyone knows to flub some it to make it believable.
CNBC canceled the poll anyway, so Trump didn't want to pay RedFinch because he didn't feel he got the benefit of what the funds were supposed to go to despite achieving #9 in the poll thanks to RedFinch.
Why did you keep the $30k out of the $50k to RedFinch?
"I was angered because of the reduction of the bonus," Cohen says, who said keeping that extra cash was "almost like self help." Though he admits it was wrongful.
"I was angered because of the reduction of the bonus," Cohen says, who said keeping that extra cash was "almost like self help." Though he admits it was wrongful.
Hoffinger asks Cohen about the 2/8/18 letter, which Cohen says omitted Trump's involvement and was intentionally misleading.
As we wait for sidebar to end, as @GrahamKates points out, the RedFinch figure keeps changing.
Exact figure aside, it seems that if your boss is known for not paying his bills, everyone under him will get what they can while the getting is good. Tone at the top kinda thing.
Exact figure aside, it seems that if your boss is known for not paying his bills, everyone under him will get what they can while the getting is good. Tone at the top kinda thing.
Hoffinger highlights the sentence: "The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution..." and Cohen says this is not true.
Merchan instructs the jury that Cohen pleaded guilty to FEC violation, but that should not be used to determine Trump's guilt.
Merchan instructs the jury that Cohen pleaded guilty to FEC violation, but that should not be used to determine Trump's guilt.
Another line from a Cohen statement—"The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone"—which Cohen calls untrue.
Hoffinger begins to ask a question, but Blanche objects—sustained.
Under the circumstances of the Daniels NDA, was it perfectly legal?
No ma'am, says Cohen.
She again brings up Cohen's guilty plea FECA violation.
Objection—sidebar.
Under the circumstances of the Daniels NDA, was it perfectly legal?
No ma'am, says Cohen.
She again brings up Cohen's guilty plea FECA violation.
Objection—sidebar.
Hoffinger resumes, then asks to approach again.
At this rate, I'm beginning to doubt Cohen will be able to leave the stand for good by lunch.
At this rate, I'm beginning to doubt Cohen will be able to leave the stand for good by lunch.
Now to the question about whether the outcome of the trial affects Cohen personally:
"It may feel like you're on trial...but are you on trial here?" Hoffinger asks. Objection—sustained.
Is your liberty at stake? No ma'am. Is your wife's liberty at stake? No ma'am.
"It may feel like you're on trial...but are you on trial here?" Hoffinger asks. Objection—sustained.
Is your liberty at stake? No ma'am. Is your wife's liberty at stake? No ma'am.
Though it is no longer news: Trump's eyes are closed.
Q: When you submitted each of your 11 invoices to the Trump Org for services rendered pursuant to the retainer agreement, was that true or false?
A: False.
We lather, rinse, repeat for the vouchers and stubs.
A: False.
We lather, rinse, repeat for the vouchers and stubs.
Cohen signed a waiver agreement and submitted it to SDNY prosecutors in 2019, and we see that waiver agreement displayed on screen now.
Cohen reads from it.
Cohen reads from it.
At the time, Cohen had waived his attorney-client privilege w/r/t communications with Costello, though at the time he didn't really think such privilege existed, in order to answer questions.
Now back to when Cohen provided fake cases to his lawyer thanks to hallucinations made by Google Bard, which he had to use bc he didn't have access to Westlaw.
Who among us.
Who among us.
After a brief sidebar, the ever merciful, ever punctual decides to break early for lunch.
I'll see you at 2:15, he tells the jury, enjoy your lunch.
I, for one, am looking forward to a meal I can enjoy not in a men's restroom.
I'll see you at 2:15, he tells the jury, enjoy your lunch.
I, for one, am looking forward to a meal I can enjoy not in a men's restroom.
Jury excused, Merchan wants to discuss whatever matter they were addressing in sidebar.
Steinglass discusses 417A and B, photos of Trump and Schiller on evening of 10/24/16 to dispel any doubt that they were together then—evidence which defense objected to admitting.
Steinglass discusses 417A and B, photos of Trump and Schiller on evening of 10/24/16 to dispel any doubt that they were together then—evidence which defense objected to admitting.
Blanche is up to push back: we never asked or implied that Schiller was or was not with Trump on that day, instead we argued that the phone call that was made to Schiller was about a different topic.
Further, Blanche says, both photos have the same hearsay problem—"That was argued and that...your honor didn't go with us"—it's inadmissible hearsay, he repeats.
Steinglass and Blanche are locked in argument about how to characterize parts of Blanche's argument—whether he was making a relevance argument or something else.
It's a meta-argument, and it's grinding on.
It's a meta-argument, and it's grinding on.
Merchan says he's not concerned about the relevance issue, but wants to look into the hearsay issue (the discussion of which we'll pick up after lunch).
At long last, we are dismissed for the long-promised, slightly delayed and deferred, lunch.
At long last, we are dismissed for the long-promised, slightly delayed and deferred, lunch.
It's 2:09 p.m., Trump walks in with his defense team in tow.
Alan Dershowitz is still here as well.
All five members of the prosecution are already seated.
Alan Dershowitz is still here as well.
All five members of the prosecution are already seated.
More color from the courtroom: Kash Patel is back again, with what looks like some kind of cast or something on his arm.
Merchan is back: he's discussing the People's proposal to introduce the exhibits, and submission incl. rules of evidence and People v Goldman decision
The CSPAN witness's need to make another trip to NYC from Louisiana could hinge on this decision.
The CSPAN witness's need to make another trip to NYC from Louisiana could hinge on this decision.
Merchan is reading a few answers from a transcript of the CSPAN witness's testimony.
Trump has a document in his hands, and he holds it up in front of his face, appearing to read it.
Trump has a document in his hands, and he holds it up in front of his face, appearing to read it.
As Merchan continues to read from the transcript, Bove and Necheles discuss something, and Necheles cracks a wide smile.
All five members of the prosecution studiously review stapled stacks of papers in front of them, scribbling a note here and there.
All five members of the prosecution studiously review stapled stacks of papers in front of them, scribbling a note here and there.
First, Merchan appreciates the caselaw referred by the People during lunch recess, and he also agrees the proffered evidence is relevant—but he doesn't see how the People can't get past the hearsay objection.
Objection is sustained. Either the images will not come in or they're gonna haul the poor guy back here from Louisiana. Sounds like it'll be the latter.
I hope he's in a good frequent flyer program.
I hope he's in a good frequent flyer program.
Blanche stands and "very much objects." He says we're presumably minutes away from the People resting their case, and they have a witness in the back ready to testify, and another short witness after that.
Seems to imply a confirmation, finally, that Trump will not testify.
Seems to imply a confirmation, finally, that Trump will not testify.
Steinglass says they're trying their best, and hope to get the witness here as early as tomorrow morning.
Merchan asks Blanche why adjourning now until tomorrow morning to do that would be prejudicial.
Merchan asks Blanche why adjourning now until tomorrow morning to do that would be prejudicial.
We're taking a moment now for the prosecution to reach out to the witness again, to see when how quickly he can get here from Louisiana.
I hope he doesn't have dinner plans.
I hope he doesn't have dinner plans.
Might I also add this is yet another reason in favor of an ultra high-speed rail network across the USA (@ Transportation Secretary @PeteButtigieg)
Some more color from the courtroom: As Dershowitz attempts to mingle with the hoi polloi in the gallery, a court officer walks over to him, and Dersh asks “Am I not allowed to talk?" The guard shakes his head no, to which Dersh exclaims, "He was my student! There’s a special...
...exception for former students!” The court officer walks away, so Dershowitz, still standing there, resumes chatting. Eventually, he wanders back to the Trump row, and sits there by himself, because the rest of the Trump team left with the former president.
The prosecution reached CSPAN, and they're booking travel now so that the witness can be here by 9:30am.
Blanche registers his continued objection, noting this is the "5th or 6th time" we have to adjourn early thanks to a prosecution witness.
Blanche registers his continued objection, noting this is the "5th or 6th time" we have to adjourn early thanks to a prosecution witness.
"Um, that's just wrong," Steinglass says, almost laughing, and here in the press gallery, people are definitely laughing.
Merchan recalls stopping early just one time, for a medical reason.
Look, if scheduling were an issue, if time were of the essence, I'd agree with Mr Blanche, the judge says. There's no prejudice—so it's up to Blanche to present case out of order, or adjourn til tmrw morning.
Look, if scheduling were an issue, if time were of the essence, I'd agree with Mr Blanche, the judge says. There's no prejudice—so it's up to Blanche to present case out of order, or adjourn til tmrw morning.
Steinglass says the ball is in Blanche's court—the defense team asks for two minutes.
If anyone on the defense team is reading it, why not adjourn early? It is, and this is no exaggeration, absolutely perfect outside.
If anyone on the defense team is reading it, why not adjourn early? It is, and this is no exaggeration, absolutely perfect outside.
Blanche having wandered over to the prosecution table, kneels down between Steinglass and Hoffinger, his elbows slung on the backs of each of their chairs.
The three are in discussion.
The three are in discussion.
They seem to be drafting something together, stipulation likely incoming.
Let's hope those plane tickets are not yet bought or refundable.
Let's hope those plane tickets are not yet bought or refundable.
Steinglass says defense agreed that the exhibit will come in, and agree to the following stipulation: Parties have agreed that Exhibit 417B is a still photograph taken from the end of a video which concluded at 7:57pm on 10/24/16.
Let the record show that Ben Wittes, seated next to me, totally called it about 10 minutes ago.
Onward.
Onward.
Jury's back, Cohen's back, and, as expected, Hoffinger shows Cohen Exhibit 417B—the photograph of Trump and Schiller.
No objection, it enters into evidence, and Hoffinger reads the stipulation, also as expected.
No objection, it enters into evidence, and Hoffinger reads the stipulation, also as expected.
Around the time, Cohen says he had a number of conversations with Trump about the Daniels matter, some in person, some by phone, some longer, some shorter.
Approx how many convos w/ Trump about Daniels matter in Oct 2016?
More than twenty, Cohen says.
Approx how many convos w/ Trump about Daniels matter in Oct 2016?
More than twenty, Cohen says.
Cohen says he reviewed records of the calls in preparation of his testimony, which helped refresh his memory.
A number of jurors have notepads and pens out, and some appear to be taking notes.
A number of jurors have notepads and pens out, and some appear to be taking notes.
Q: Do you have any doubt in your mind that Trump gave you final sign off?
A: No doubt.
Q: Would you have paid Stormy Daniels $130k had Trump not signed off?
A: No.
A: No doubt.
Q: Would you have paid Stormy Daniels $130k had Trump not signed off?
A: No.
Hoffinger plays People's 265, and you can follow along via the transcript (People's 267) here: documentcloud.org/documents/2463…
After a bit of technical difficulties, unresolved, we take a quick break, for which Merchan apologizes to the jury.
The clip starts abruptly—the press let out a surprised laugh—and stops again. I guess the tech issues have been resolved, so they ask to bring back the jury and witness.
Before the tech difficulties start, it looks like we were about to hear this clip we've heard before, the "nobody is thinking about Michael" clip:
We're back, and Cohen's voice in the recording cuts in—Merchan stops and asks if Cohen is supposed to have the transcript in front of him on his screen. We pause for a beat, get Cohen the transcript, and the clip continues.
This is a great opportunity to give a shout out to this excellent lead in a recent @TheEconomist piece: economist.com/united-states/…
Hoffinger says defense asked Cohen a lot about how he profited off books and podcasts, but setting that aside how has telling the truth about Trump affected you?
COHEN: My entire life has been turned upside down as a direct result—I lost my law license, my businesses, my...
COHEN: My entire life has been turned upside down as a direct result—I lost my law license, my businesses, my...
...financial security, which I was fortunate early to obtain.
Q: You were subject to attacks?
A: Yes.
Q: You were subject to attacks?
A: Yes.
Nothing further from Hoffinger, Blanche back up.
He asks about that last question, but asks how his life was turned upside down after he changed his opinion about Trump—objection, sustained. So he asks about losing his law license: was that Trump's fault?
Partly, says Cohen.
He asks about that last question, but asks how his life was turned upside down after he changed his opinion about Trump—objection, sustained. So he asks about losing his law license: was that Trump's fault?
Partly, says Cohen.
Blanche asks whether Cohen lost his license because of the felonies.
No not because of those, says Cohen—it was because of the totality, including campaign finance violations and lying to Congress.
No not because of those, says Cohen—it was because of the totality, including campaign finance violations and lying to Congress.
BLANCHE: Isn't it true that you immediately lose your law license when convicted of a felony (Yes) — yet you still blame President Trump?
COHEN: Correct.
COHEN: Correct.
Back to the waiver agreement: Blanche is trying to catch Cohen between apparent inconsistencies in his belief that his communications with Costello were privileged at different times, though, like much of the cross, it's a bit confusing.
Back to the Schiller call following the rally—Blanche asks (incredulously) whether Cohen had time to discuss with Trump the 14 year old issue and the Daniels matter all in 90 seconds.
In 2016, you made $425k from the Trump Org? (base salary + bonus) Then in 2017, you were paid $420k, correct? $35k a month?
Correct, says Cohen.
But your testimony is that the $420k retainer—or payment you received—was not for legal services but for reimbursement? (Correct)
Correct, says Cohen.
But your testimony is that the $420k retainer—or payment you received—was not for legal services but for reimbursement? (Correct)
Blanche begins to ask about how in 2016, Trump spent about $70m of his own money—objection (out of scope), sustained.
Nothing further, Cohen is done, and the prosecution rests its case-in-chief.
Sidebar—likely about scheduling.
Nothing further, Cohen is done, and the prosecution rests its case-in-chief.
Sidebar—likely about scheduling.
The defense calls paralegal Daniel Sitko.
Blanche: “Where do you …. work?”
Sitko: Blanche Law.
Blanche: You work for me?
"I do," Sitko says cheekily.
Sitko: Blanche Law.
Blanche: You work for me?
"I do," Sitko says cheekily.
Sitko explains his role in creating an excel spreadsheet of a call summary between Cohen and Costello.
And now we see that spreadsheet, his magnum opus.
And now we see that spreadsheet, his magnum opus.
Nothing further from Blanche, Mangold is up now.
We've encountered each other before right? Mangold asks, smiling, we work on the same case?
Yes, says Sitko, smiling back.
We've encountered each other before right? Mangold asks, smiling, we work on the same case?
Yes, says Sitko, smiling back.
Mangold asks a clarifying question about the caller column—DHC means Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLC.
A number of entries in the chart read 0:00, denoting an unanswered call.
Thrilling stuff.
A number of entries in the chart read 0:00, denoting an unanswered call.
Thrilling stuff.
Sitko steps down.
"The defense call Robert Costello."
A wave of "oooohhhhs" wash over the press gallery.
But before we see him, Hoffinger asks to approach—sidebar.
"The defense call Robert Costello."
A wave of "oooohhhhs" wash over the press gallery.
But before we see him, Hoffinger asks to approach—sidebar.
Recall that Costello was pushing the backchannel communication btwn Cohen, Giuliani, and Trump.
Costello wanted to represent Cohen, but Cohen didn't trust him.
Costello wanted to represent Cohen, but Cohen didn't trust him.
With apologies, Merchan asks the jury to step out so he can discuss something with the parties.
Again, I do wish we had discussed this earlier, Merchan begins.
Hoffinger stands to reiterate the prosecution's objection: that Constello is being brought in to offer extrinsic evidence to rebut a witness's testimony.
Hoffinger stands to reiterate the prosecution's objection: that Constello is being brought in to offer extrinsic evidence to rebut a witness's testimony.
Hoffinger says Costello's testimony should be restricted just to the two questions that Cohen testified he didn't recall with regard to Costello.
Further, Cohen testified that on multiple times he didn't tell the truth to Costello, out of fear that. itwould get back to Trump.
Further, Cohen testified that on multiple times he didn't tell the truth to Costello, out of fear that. itwould get back to Trump.
Bove says that the defense provided notice days ago their intention to call Costello—there's no mystery here. He's seeking to elicit many facts about how Costello and Cohen's "engagement worked."
Selfishly, I would love to see testimony from a lawyer so shady that even Michael Cohen didn't trust him.
As Bove makes his case, Merchan pushes back: How can Costello testify as to how Cohen felt? Or to Cohen's state of mind?
Merchan clarifies he will entertain other arguments, but not that.
Merchan clarifies he will entertain other arguments, but not that.
"We're gonna take 5 minutes—don't leave the courtroom," Merchan says, leaving the bench.
See you in 5, I guess.
See you in 5, I guess.
Merchan: Mr Bove you can definitely cross-examine as to the two prior inconsistent statements, and I'll give you some latitude to offer some rebuttal as to the pressure campaign—but I'm not going to allow this to become a trial-within-a-trial.
He won't allow the retainer issue.
He won't allow the retainer issue.
We're waiting for the jury to return.
After that, they'll call Robert Costello to swear him in.
After that, they'll call Robert Costello to swear him in.
Costello, dark suit, snowy-white hair, takes the stand.
"Robert"—he stops, having startled himself—"that's awfully loud. Robert Costello," he says.
Bove begins.
"Robert"—he stops, having startled himself—"that's awfully loud. Robert Costello," he says.
Bove begins.
Prior to working at Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, Costello was a federal prosecutor in New York: an Assistant US Attorney at SDNY.
Does he know Michael Cohen?
Yes, he does.
Does he know Michael Cohen?
Yes, he does.
Q: Did you consider your conversation at Regency Hotel with Michael Cohen to be attorney-client privileged?
Objection, sustained, but Costello continues to answer, "Absolutely."
Sustained, Merchan repeats, and strikes the answer from the record.
Objection, sustained, but Costello continues to answer, "Absolutely."
Sustained, Merchan repeats, and strikes the answer from the record.
At the hotel in the meeting with Cohen and Citron, Costello says Cohen was absolutely manic, pacing back and forth, and asked Costello what his options were, for an escape route.
Costellos says he pointed out that a search warrant of a law office is much more difficult to get than any other place—objection, sustained.
Hoffinger is quick on the draw during this objection watch. She's on high alert.
Hoffinger is quick on the draw during this objection watch. She's on high alert.
After two more sustained objections, Bove says he just wants to stay narrow.
I explained that this entire situation would be resolved by the end of the week if he had truthful information on Trump and cooperated with SDNY, Costello says he told Cohen.
I explained that this entire situation would be resolved by the end of the week if he had truthful information on Trump and cooperated with SDNY, Costello says he told Cohen.
Q: Did the topic of Stormy Daniels come up?
Objection—overruled.
A: Cohen began by saying I don't understand why they're trying to put me in jail for some f'ing NDA.
Costello continues, but objection, sustained.
Objection—overruled.
A: Cohen began by saying I don't understand why they're trying to put me in jail for some f'ing NDA.
Costello continues, but objection, sustained.
Q: Did Trump's family come up?
A: Yes.
Q: What did Cohen say about Trump's family?
Objection, sustained.
Please approach—sidebar.
A: Yes.
Q: What did Cohen say about Trump's family?
Objection, sustained.
Please approach—sidebar.
After Merchan sustained one of those last few objections, Costello just shook his head with a kind of “can you believe it” energy.
Just after Merchan called the sidebar, a man just muttered “this is ridiculous” into a mic, but I'm not positive who said it.
Just after Merchan called the sidebar, a man just muttered “this is ridiculous” into a mic, but I'm not positive who said it.
Bove's back: we're still focused on the Regency meeting, I want to focus very narrowly on whether Cohen said anything about whether Trump knew about the payment to Daniels.
A: Cohen said numerous times that Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own.
A: Cohen said numerous times that Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own.
Was Rudy Giuliani mentioned?
Objection—overruled, "I'll allow it."
Yes, Costello says, but only briefly.
Objection—overruled, "I'll allow it."
Yes, Costello says, but only briefly.
Bove shows the email from Costello to Cohen (cc Citron) on 4/18/18: "I am sure you saw the news that Rudy is joining the Trump legal team. I told you my relationship with Rudy which could be very very useful to you."
We see Cohen's response now: "Great news for Rudy. I know I owe you a call. I have been working iwth lawyers all day and just now am coming up for air. I will try you tomorrow."
Costello took that to mean Cohen was with another firm going over evidence that had been seized by the search warrant and they were presumably selecting documents that were attorney-client privileged.
More objections, sustained.
"Jeez," Costello says into the mic, sounding exasperated.
Laughs in the gallery.
"Jeez," Costello says into the mic, sounding exasperated.
Laughs in the gallery.
After Costello said "jeez" into the mic, Merchan, fires at him, "What did you just say?"
"Strike it," Costello responds.
That's some chutzpah! Sir, you are not the judge.
It's tense in the courtroom.
"Strike it," Costello responds.
That's some chutzpah! Sir, you are not the judge.
It's tense in the courtroom.
We see the email from earlier, 4/23/18 Costello to Cohen, more questions, more objections.
Costello dramatically blows out a puff of air, sounding exhausted.
Merchan excuses the jury once again.
Costello dramatically blows out a puff of air, sounding exhausted.
Merchan excuses the jury once again.
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that.
And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye.
And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye.
Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
Clear the courtroom, the judge says.
Clear the courtroom, the judge says.
I think most people thought Costello's testimony would be a disaster—but I'm not sure anyone predicted this.
The press is still seated in overflow but the rest of the press from the courtroom is just hanging in the hallway, having been cleared per Merchan's order.
Everyone is heading back in.
The video feed turns on, and we see Costello on the stand, frowning ahead. It's such an absurd image, him sitting there mugging at the camera, that press in the gallery start to laugh.
Reporters file back into their seats in the gallery, as Trump and Blanche chat quietly to each other, cupping their hands over their mouths secretly.
Let's get the jury in please, Merchan says, having regained his composure.
Costello sits there silently.
Costello sits there silently.
Bove is back at the lectern.
He shows Defense 1008: 5/16/18 email Costello to Cohen, at the bottom he writes "I will not pester you. If you want to talk you know how to reach [Citron] or myself."
He shows Defense 1008: 5/16/18 email Costello to Cohen, at the bottom he writes "I will not pester you. If you want to talk you know how to reach [Citron] or myself."
Bove asks what he meant by those last lines, and Costello begins to answer, but he starts pretty far afield, so Hoffinger objects—sustained, stricken.
We now see a splitscreen of the email and a call log btwn Cohen and Costello.
We now see a splitscreen of the email and a call log btwn Cohen and Costello.
The fireworks of a few moments ago have settled down. When the reporters filed back into the courtroom, the court officers told everyone that we were doing "Same Seats," like kids on a school bus.
Order has returned to Justice Merchan's realm.
Order has returned to Justice Merchan's realm.
Another email, Costello to Cohen, the line "Please remember if you want or need to communicate something, please let me know and I will see that it gets done."
What did you mean by that? Objection—overruled.
What did you mean by that? Objection—overruled.
Costello says that he was telling Cohen that if he had a message, he'd pass it on to Giuliani.
Did you ever pressure Cohen? Try to get him to interact with Giuliani in any way?
No and no, says Costello.
Did you ever pressure Cohen? Try to get him to interact with Giuliani in any way?
No and no, says Costello.
Q: During your interactions with Cohen, did you consider him to be a client?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Whose interests did you have in mind?
A: Exclusively Michael Cohen.
A: Absolutely.
Q: Whose interests did you have in mind?
A: Exclusively Michael Cohen.
Before Bove sits down, he asks, we've met before right?
Yes, says Costello, and confirms that he also met with state and federal prosecutors, and handed over documents to them as well.
Yes, says Costello, and confirms that he also met with state and federal prosecutors, and handed over documents to them as well.
Nothing further from Bove. Hoffinger is up.
On 4/17/18, Citron reached out to Cohen to see if he'd be interested in meeting with Costello?
No, says Costello, the email speaks for itself.
Ok, let's take a look then, says Hoffinger, showing him People's 512P.
On 4/17/18, Citron reached out to Cohen to see if he'd be interested in meeting with Costello?
No, says Costello, the email speaks for itself.
Ok, let's take a look then, says Hoffinger, showing him People's 512P.
Accepted into evidence, we see the email, "extolling" Costello's achievements and famous clients, says Hoffinger. Weren't you hoping to have Cohen as a client? she asks.
I wasn't hoping anything, it's not my email, snaps Costello.
I wasn't hoping anything, it's not my email, snaps Costello.
"I didn't know Michael Cohen from a hole in the wall," Costello says.
The jury appears to be watching closely.
The jury appears to be watching closely.
So you knew at the time based on the news that Cohen was Trump's personal attorney? (Yes.) And if you could land him as a client that would be a big case for the firm? (I suppose so) And would get you public exposure? (Yes it would) It would be a high-profile case? (Probably.)
This would push you into the arena with Rudy Giuliani and Trump, having Cohen as a client? (I don't understand the question, Costello says, withdrawn.)
During the Merchan-Costello standoff earlier, I couldn't help but wonder if Costello was putting on his tough guy act bc he was treating his testimony like an interview for a future job on Trump's legal team.
But that's just speculation.
But that's just speculation.
We see another email, from Costello's son, who says in response to potential news that Costello landed Cohen as a client: "Wow. That's big news. Congrats Dad. I hope this leads to a lot of good things coming your way."
As Costello and Hoffinger duke it out, the press is clearly tickled by this prickly man. Some snickers and giggles ripple through the overflow room as he remains to be a generally difficult witness on the stand.
Back to the Regency meeting: Cohen was suicidal that day, and acting very manic, Costello says. Hoffinger begins to ask that as a crim def attorney, he can understand how traumatic a search is, but Costello points at Hoffinger and says, "Why don't you talk into the microphone."
Costello says that Cohen told them that two nights before, he was on the roof of the Regency Hotel and that he was going to jump off because he couldn't handle the ongoing investigation.
"Did you tell the grand jury that Cohen was acting like a drama queen?" Hoffinger asks.
"Did you tell the grand jury that Cohen was acting like a drama queen?" Hoffinger asks.
After some drama late in the day, Merchan stops it there. We adjourn.
Phew, what a day.
If you like drama like I like drama, consider supporting @lawfare's dramatic coverage: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…
Phew, what a day.
If you like drama like I like drama, consider supporting @lawfare's dramatic coverage: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…
Before we leave, Merchan asks Hoffinger whether they have about 30 mins left, and Bove says they expect a quick redirect.
The defense doesn't expect to call another witness after Costello.
The defense doesn't expect to call another witness after Costello.
Blanche rises for one more matter: they move for an order of dismissal now because, Blanche says, there's no evidence the business records were false.
Blanche continues to riddle off a few reasons as to why this case should be immediately dismissed.
Merchan watches him from the bench, his glasses removed.
Trump is sideways in his chair, watching Blanche intently.
Merchan watches him from the bench, his glasses removed.
Trump is sideways in his chair, watching Blanche intently.
Blanche is talking about the Dino Sajudin story: If there was some conspiracy to influence an election, how on earth is keeping a false story from the voters criminal?
As it relates to Daniels, AMI wanted nothing to do with that, says Blanche.
He's trying to poke holes in the "catch-and-kill conspiracy" story. If AMI wanted out, how could there be a conspiracy?
He's trying to poke holes in the "catch-and-kill conspiracy" story. If AMI wanted out, how could there be a conspiracy?
For the underlying predicate that bumps this up to a felony, Blanche says. there's no evidence of criminal intent among any of the parties in 2016-17.
Blanche ends by arguing that there's no way the jury should deliberate based on Cohen's testimony.
Blanche ends by arguing that there's no way the jury should deliberate based on Cohen's testimony.
MERCHAN: So you're asking me to find Cohen not credible as a matter of law?
Yes! Blanche exclaims.
Yes! Blanche exclaims.
So you want me to take it out of the jury's hands, and decide before it even gets to the jury, that this person is so not worthy of belief that it shouldn't even be considered by the jury?
We didn't just catch him in a lie, Blanche says, he came in here with a history of lying.
We didn't just catch him in a lie, Blanche says, he came in here with a history of lying.
Colangelo is up for the prosecution and begins to try to pick apart Blanche's flurry of arguments in favor of his motion to dismiss the case.
Blanche is back up fighting to dismiss the case.
It's a marathon day. We started early, and we're running late.
It's a marathon day. We started early, and we're running late.
Justice Merchan reserves his right to render decision, and we're dismissed now, this time for real.
See you tomorrow at 9:30.
See you tomorrow at 9:30.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
