Thread by @AnnaBower

Good morning from 100 Centre Street, where Donald Trump’s criminal trial is set to resume.

On deck today: The cross examination of Michael Cohen is set to wrap up.

Will the defense call any witnesses to the stand once the prosecution rests its case?

Follow along 👇 ⬇️ 👇

Vibes from the line: There’s only a handful of protestors today.

And some of them are here to protest causes that have nothing to do with Trump.

The noble cause of one guy? Line integrity.

“Stop the cutting and cheating!” he chants.

“There’s no line integrity!”

Trump's entourage continues to grow. Per Trump's campaign, the VIP posse joining him today includes:

AG Alan Wilson
Rep. Eric Burlison
Rep. Andrew Clyde
Rep. Mary Miller
Rep. Keith Self
John Coale
Alan Dershowitz
Will Scharf
Steve Witkoff
Bernie Kerik
Kash Patel
Vernon Jones
Jerry Kassar
Chuck Zito

We're getting started a little early today as the parties deal with issues that need to be raised before the jury comes in.

Trump has now arrived in court, wearing a blue tie today. (He's really been mixing it up with the ties lately!)

Alan Dershowitz is seated int he front row of the gallery, directly behind Trump.

I also spot the usual faces: Eric Trump, Alina Habba, Boris Epshteyn.

"All rise" as Justice Juan Merchan enters the room and the court office calls the case.

The parties introduce themselves.

"Good morning, Mr. Trump," Justice Merchan says.

First, Justice Merchan thanks the parties for coming in early. There were issues that came up over the weekend, he says.

As a result of some of those issues, it's become apparent that we WON'T be able to move to summations tomorrow.

We will finish up evidence, the pre-charge conference, and so on this week, Justice Merchan continues.

And then we'll move to closing arguments next week, after the long weekend.

Now we're moving on to issues regarding objections to evidence that might be introduced during the continued cross examination of Michael Cohen.

The prosecution objects to the introduction of an email sent to Michael Cohen by Robert Costello's law partner back in 2018.

At this point, Merchan says, I'm not going to allow it in. It expresses an opinion of the author (Jeff Citron, Costello's law partner).

I don't see probative value for impeachment purposes, he continues. It doesn't express Cohen's state of mind -- it's Citron's opinion.

Justice Merchan is now prepared to rule on the expert witness issue. That's the issue regarding the scope of the testimony of their expert, Bradley Smith, who the defense intends to call to testify about campaign finance law.

The defense wanted to elicit testimony from Smith about various legal issues regarding campaign finance law -- including interpretations of "the purpose of influencing any election for federal office," the "irrespective rule" from the FEC's regulation, and the press exemption.

Justice Merchan, however, says that this would fall under the umbrella of legal opinion -- and he previously barred expert testimony that involves legal opinion.

That would only serve to confuse rather than assist the jurors, Merchan says now/

The fact that the parties have submitted proposed jury instructions on campaign finance law does not change the court's prior ruling on the scope of expert testimony, Merchan continues.

He directs the parties back to his pre-trial decision. That's what Smith can testify to.

Emil Bove, for Trump, says in response that the problem for the defense is that Justice Merchan has not indicated whether it intends to instruct the jurors on these issues. It will impact summations and how the defense presents its case going forward, Bove says.

Bove asks Merchan for a sense of how he'll instruct the jurors on these matters. Merchan says he usually goes by the principle that less is better. He adds that the People are not required to prove an FEC violation beyond a reasonable doubt (just intent to commit or conceal a violation.)

Bove doubles down, but Justice Merchan maintains his position: You've known this for months, nothing has changed.

Bove looks like he's about to interject as Merchan continues his monologue, but the judge isn't having it. "Relax," he says to Bove.

But Justice Merchan throws Bove a bone of sorts: Why don't you make me a proffer of what Bradley Smith, the expert, would say? And then I'll respond to that accordingly, Justice Merchan says.

While ostensibly about the scope of expert testimony, a big part of this back-and-forth with Justice Merchan has involved discussion of the prosecution's legal theory of the case. @qjurecic and @TylerMcBrien explained that legal theory for @lawfare:

lawfaremedia.org/article/what-m…

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Now Blanche asks Justice Merchan for a sidebar. He agrees, and the parties crowd around the bench for an out-of-earshot discussion.

We may learn more about the subject matter of the sidebar when the transcript is available, but for now it remains a mystery.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare And now we're on a ten minute break before Michael Cohen and the jurors returns to courtroom 1530.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare And we're back.

Justice Merchan instructs the parties to draft jury instructions for the matters just discussed, conferring with the other party before submitting to the court.

Ok, let's get the witness please, the judge says.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Michael Cohen enters the room and climbs behind the witness stand for his fourth day of testimony.

The jurors file in.

"Good morning jurors, welcome back," Justice Merchan says.

Todd Balnche pops up to continue his cross examination.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Since we finished last week, Blanche begins, how many reporters did you talk to about what happened last week?

I haven't talked to reporters about what happened last week, Cohen replies. He admits he did talk to reporters. But he didn't talk about the case with them, he says.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare How many times did you meet with prosecutors about the case this year? Balnche asks.

Cohen says it was probably more than 12 times, closer to 20. The last time he met with prosecutors was about 10 days ago.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare When they asked you questions on direct examination last week, you'd heard those questions before during prep?

Some of them. There were many questions that I had not heard before, Cohen says. But he can't recall a specific example of a question he hadn't heard before.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Any time you testify under other, you prep for it? Yes, sir.

Including before Congress? Yes.

You know Dan Goldman? Yes, he's a member of congress.

Cohen says that he met w/ Goldman before his congressional testimony before the House Oversight Committee in 2019.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Now Blanche moves back to the time in October of 2016, leading up to the end of October when Cohen made the Stormy Daniels payment.

At that time, you were also dealing with issues with your taxi medallions? And you were working w/ a lawyer to close a real estate deal?

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare And around that time you recall helping Trump's daughter, Tiffany Trump, with a matter related to potential extortion of photographs? Yes, sir.

And you spoke to Pecker about that? Yes.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Blanche is trying to make the point that Cohen had a lot going on in October of 2016.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Then Blanche elicits testimony in which Cohen says that one of the business deals he was working on at the time involved working with a business associate w/ an LLC titled "Resolution Consultants."

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare That's the same name as the "Resolutions Consultants" LLC that Cohen tried to establish a bank account for w/ First Republic to reimburse AMI for the McDougal life rights (a payment that was never executed).

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Blanche asks about Friedman, Cohen's business associate who was the owner of Resolutions Consultants LLC and who as involved w/ Cohen's taxi medallion venture.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare At the time in the fall of 2016, Friedman was going through a tough time? Yes, marital problems. You helped him find a place to live?

Unclear where this is going.

As Blanche asks Cohen about Friedman, Hoffinger jumps up to object to this line of inquiry. Sidebar.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Questioning about Friedman resumes.

You helped him find an apartment? Yes.

Did the Resolution Consultants deal you were working on Friedman with ever close? No.

And your testimony was that you opened Resolutions LLC for the Karen McDougal deal, not for the deal in FL? Yes.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Blanche turns to Cohen's work on the national diversity coalition as a surrogate for the campaign.

Cohen testifies that it was "big deal" for everyone--him, the campaign--when he got a statement from a relative of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who had decided to support Trump.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare And you recall that on Oct. 25 you got a call from Trump's daughter, Tiffany, about someone trying to blackmail her? Yes.

You spoke to Pecker? Yes.

That all happened on the evening of Oct. 25? I can show you documents.

I believe that's correct, Cohen says.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Now we're onto the calls with Trump on the morning of Oct. 26. Cohen testified earlier that those calls were because he wanted Trump's approval for the Stormy Daniels deal before he opened the First Republic account to make the payment.

That's still your testimony today? Yes.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Do you recall what Trump was doing that day? No, sir.

Blanche shows exhibit B168.

Do you recall that the morning of the 26th, Trump was going to sit down with ABC news? No, sir.

It would be his entire family, Melania, his children? Objection, sustained.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Do you recall Oct. 26 being the day of the opening ceremony for the post office in DC? No, sir.

But you do have a specific recollection that on those two phone calls, you just talked about the Stormy Daniels deal? Because it was importnat to me.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Was the Tiffany Trump deal something you would've updated her father about when you spoke to him the next day, on the morning of Oct. 26? No, sir.

My recollecition of the phone call is about Stormy Daniels bc that's what he asked me to deal with, Cohen explains.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare You wouldn't have talked w/ Trump about him opening the old post office hotel in DC?

Blanche is trying to make the point that there's plenty of reasons why Cohen might have talked to Trump on the morning of Oct. 26.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Now we're talking about the structure of the payments that the Trump organization paid out to Cohen.

Recall:
$130,000 for the Daniels payment
$50,000 for reimbursement for "tech services" by a company called Redfinch
$180,000 tax "gross up"
$60,000 bonus

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Cohen talks about how he paid back Redfinch for the 50K owed. Though he told Weisselberg that he needed 50K reimbuirsement, Cohen admits that he actually didn't pay the whole 50K amount to the company. He gave them 20K in a brown paper bag.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Nonetheless, Cohen asked for the 50K reimbursement from the Trump Organization.

So you stole? Yes, Cohen admits.
And you've never paid the Trump Organization back for the money you stole from it? No.
You lied to Weisselberg about the amount owed to you for Redfinch? Yes

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare You never had a retainer agreements with the Trump Org? Correct.

Your attorney client relationship -- the retainer agreement -- would have been just between you and President Trump? Correct.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare But you and Weisselberg decided there would be no retainer agreement?

Can you rephrase that, Cohen asks, looking a bit perplexed.

Blanche shows him an exhibit. It's an email chain. It's accepted into evidence.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare We see an email from Weisselberg to Cohen on Jan. 31, 2017 -- after Cohen's meeting w/ Weisselberg about the payment structures.

Weisselberg writes: "please prepare the agreement we discussed so that you can be paid monthly."

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Why would you need to prepare an agreement if there was never any expectation that you would have one?

Because it was so that I could be repaid the reimursement, the 35K per month.

But you testified that you and Weisselberg agreeed that there would be no retainer agreement?

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Is it fair to say that once you became personal attorney to Trump, your signature block said the same thing -- personal attorney to Trump? Yes

And that was the same job you had for a decade? Yes, but not for Trump at Trump Org, but as personal atornney to the President.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare You told everybody that that was happening, correct? Not everybody.

You told TMZ? Yes.
Sean Hannity, you went on his show? I did.
And you said it was the same role you always had, but as personal attorney to the President? Yes.
And that's what you did? Yes, sir.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Blanche shows Cohen another exhibit. It's Cohen's goodbye email to the Trump Org. It's accepted into evidence. Cohen sent the email on 1/27/2017, telling Trump Org employeees how much he would miss everyone but that he was starting work as Trump's personal attorney.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare And then you began helping Trump with legal matters in January or February? Yes, sir.
You worked with Mark Kasowitz on a case? Yes. Kasowitz was lead counsel, Cohen explains.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Blanche shows Cohen a document to refresh his recollection, and then asks again: It was true that both you and Mr. Kasowitz were lead counsel on that matter? Yes.

And is one of the things you did as Trump's attorney help Trump find attorneys to work a case? Correct.
You recall doing that in Jan. or Feb. in 2017? Yes, sir.
For example, there were reporters making defamatory statements about Trump...it was part of your job to help w/ that? Yes, sir.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Back to the case that Cohen was on with Kasowitz.

There were legal filings in that case? Yes.
You helped with the filings? I reviewed the documents, yes.
You recall helping Trump serve subpoenas on government agencies? No, sir.

Blanche shows Cohen a document.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare You recall working with Mr. Kasowitz about serving subpoenas? Blanche asks again. Cohen says he received an email related to those matters.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare You did legal work for the first lady in 2017? I did.

There was an issue with Madame Toussauds? Yes.

You reviewed the agreement for that? Yes, sir.

You met with the first lady in New York? Yes, sir.

And part of that was helping her w/ legal issues? No, sir.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Well, the Madame Toussauds work was a legal issue? Yes.

And there was a trademark issue? Yes.

And you met with her separately on non-legal issues? Yes, personal matters.

So for a long time your job as Trump's lawyer was working on both legal and non-legal matters? Yes

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare At some point were you advised not to communicate with Trump during the Mueller investigation? Around May of that year? I don't recall that, no, sir.

And to be clear, you continued to get paid the 35K per month? Correct.

That was the agreement struck? Correct.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare You also did a lot of consulting work duiring that time? I don't know how to define a little or a lot, but I had clients. I was paid approximately 4 million dollars total.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Let's start with AT&T. You started in Jan. 2017? (Yes.)

Cohen explains that he was paid approximately 600K for about 20 communications he had w/ AT&T on the consulting job.

And there's nothing wrong with that? Blanche asks.

No, Cohen replies.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare By the way, you never told Trump that you had these consulting arrangements? Objection, overruled.

In fact, it was Trump who introduced me to the CEO of AT&T.

My question wasn't who introduced you, Blanche pushes back.

Cohen: I did not specifically tell President Trump that.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare What about Novartis? They hired you in March 2017? (Correct.)

You testified in front of Congress that you had six communications with them? Maybe more than that. But it was not significant.

You were paid 1.2 million dollars for that? (Yes.)

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare And that's how it works? They can use you as much or as little as they want? Correct.

Because a retainer agreement isn't based on the quantity of the work---Objection, sustained.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare One consulting client, Cohen says, was supposed to pay him 150K a month, but they only paid for about 3 months before the relationship fizzled.

And now we move up to 2018 in the timeline, when the Stormy Daniels payment story broke early that year.

After the story broke, Cohen went to visit someone in jail. Do recall saying during that visit that Trump knew nothing about it? That's what I was saying to people at the time.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare You spoke to Maggie Haberman, told her Trump didn't know about the Daniels payment? Yes, sir.

You recorded convos w/ multiple reporters in which you told them you didn't know anything about it? Yes, sir.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare So at the time the FBI raided your residences, you would tell anyone who asked that Trump didn't know anything about it? Yes.

Then in April 2018 the FBI searched your property, hotel room, etc.? Yes.

And then you met with Bob Costello and Jeff Citron on April 18? Yes

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare I don't recall how long the meeting last, Cohen says. He thinks they brought a retainer agreement with them that day, but he's not sure. Cohen testifies that he had multiple conversations with Costello over the next few weeks/months.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Blanche displays an email from Costello to Cohen.

"I spoke to the people you asked me to" about how the case ended up in SDNY, Costello wrote in the email. Costello explained he was waiting on an answer back.

Then Blanche shows another email chain to Cohen, which is accepted into evidence. It's from May 2018.

Bob, as I have stated in the past....and now is not the right time, we will advance our conversations regarding this issue. Cohen says there are "too many" hands on the matter and that on no circumstances should Costello represent anything on his behalf.

Would it surprise you to learn that you spoke to Costello over 9 hours over the course of several months? No, sir.

Do you recall over the Memorial Day weekend talking to Costello for a conversation that last over half an hour? And you initiated those calls?

To the bets of my recollection, Cohen says, I believe Mr. Costello reached out more to me.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare We now see an April 2018 email from Cohen to Costello, in which he congratulates Giuliani for being hired as Trump's attorney. Cohen says he's been busy and is just "coming up for air" but would give Costello a call soon.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Another email: In June 2018, Costello sent Cohen a link to a YouTube video, writing "something you should see."

Cohen replied: "Why send this to me?"

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Another email: From Cohen to Costello, in which Cohen forwarded an article titled "Trump's campaign to discredit Michael Cohen is already underway."

Cohen wrote "since we are sharing again...they are already on a bad path."

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Did you stop making money from consulting in 2018? Yes, sir.

The 4 million you made in that 18 month period from consulting...was that the most you'd made in your life? No, Cohen says. He's made 5 million in another 18 month period.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Is it correct that between the time you pleaded guilty and published your book, you didn't have any income? Correct.

But you had a lot of bills? Yes.

And since you started your podcast and published your books, how much have you made? About 4 million dollars?

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare Cohen agrees he's made about 4.4 million from the books/podcast.

He also leases a property, he says.

And you make money off merchandise you sell off your podcast? Yes.

...........we have been over this many times, but ok!

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare I had to run out for a minute to join @AnaCabrera et al. on @MSNBC but per @TylerMcBrien the morning break is over.

I’m on my way back to the overflow to resume live-tweeting shortly!

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare @AnaCabrera @MSNBC I'm back.

Blanche's cross examination is over, finally.

Folks, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Todd Balnche has many gifts as an advocate, but it was a huge mistake on the part of the defense not to put Emil Bove on for this cross examination.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare @AnaCabrera @MSNBC Blanche landed a few punches, sure, but they were overshadowed by the meandering, circuitous nature of his cross examination.

It's no surprise that my colleagues in the courtroom today report that some jurors looked downright bored, rubbing their eyes and shifting in seats.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare @AnaCabrera @MSNBC Susan Hoffinger is now up for redirect.

She's asking Cohen about the Redfinch reimbursement, which was paid back to Cohen as a part of the same 35K per month payments in which Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Daniels deal.

@qjurecic @TylerMcBrien @lawfare @AnaCabrera @MSNBC She asks Cohen to explain why he asked Trump Org to pay him the fill 50K Redfinch reimbursement when he in fact only paid 20K to the company. Cohen admits it was "wrongful" to take the extra 30K from the Trump Org.

Cohen took the extra 30K because he was angry, he says, about the Trump Org skimping on his annual bonus.

Hoffinger asks Cohen about this letter he submitted to the FEC, in which he says that the Trump Org nor the Trump campaign were part of the Stormy Daniels transaction. This was misleading, Cohen says.

The letter also said that the payment to Daniels did not constitute a campaign contribution or expenditure.

Was that a true question? No, ma'am.

Justice Merchan provides the jurors w/ an instruction: Cohen has pleaded guilty to violating the FECA, but you may not use that to consider whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes. It's to assess Cohen's credibility.

Now Hoffinger pulls up the statement Cohen sent to reporters about the FEC complaint.

In that statement, Cohen said the payment to Daniels was lawful and not a campaign contribution.

Was that true? No ma'am.

You were asked questions about NDAs, Hoffinger said. You said NDAs in some circumstances are legal. You recall that? Yes, I do.

Under the circumstances of the NDA with Daniels, was that perfectly legal? No, ma'am.

And you pleaded guilty to an FECA violation in connection to that payment? I did.

Hoffinger continues to ask Cohen questions about his guilty plea to FECA violations. This elicits another objection, and the parties head to a sidebar.

Justice Merchan announces that the objection is sustained, but then Hoffinger asks to approach again. Sidebar, again.

Defense counsel asked you about whether you would personally benefit from this prosecution.

Are you actually on trial here? No, ma'am.
Is your liberty at stake in this case? No, ma'am.
Is your wife's liberty at stake? No, ma'am.
You were subpoenaed? Yes.

Now we're on the Costello/Cohen relationship in 2018.

Did you ever sign a retainer with him? No. I was concerned about the relationship he had with Giuliani and believed anything I said to him would get back to Trump.

And you never paid him? No.

Now Hoffinger asks about the time when Cohen caused his attorney to submit fake cases in his filings for early termination of supervised release.

Cohen explains, again, that he went on the AI site Google Bard to research cases. It gave him cases that looked legitimate, and he sent the cases to his lawyer to incorporate into the document.

Cohen says he didn't have Westlaw or LexisNexis anymore. That's why he used the AI search tool.

(Maybe when this is all over Michael Cohen will be the face of the FREE WESTLAW movement.)

Hoffinger starts asking Cohen about communications with Keith Schiller.

We go into an extended sidebar over an exhibit the prosecution wants to introduce.

Justice Merchan decides to let the jurors go early so the parties can discuss the matter in open court.

According to Steinglass, the exhibit is a photo showing that Schiller and Trump were together on Oct. 24.

That date is important because it's the date of a phone call between Cohen and Schiller, in which Cohen allegedly spoke to Trump about the Daniels payment.

Blanche, objecting to the introduction of the photo, says that they never elicited testimony from Cohen that suggested that Trump wasn't with Schiller. (Instead, they suggested that Cohen spoke to Schiller about something else -- the 14 year old phone harasser).

Steinglass says they have a paralegal at the ready to lay foundation and authenticate the CSPAN photo.

All of which means we might get yet another cameo during this trial from America's Favorite Paralegal, Georgia Longstreet!

Trump's eyes are still closed as Blanche pushes against the introduction of the photo. He's had his eyes closed basically all day.

He's leaning back in his seat, and I think he might be asleep, but then....signs of life from the former President: He rubs his nose.

No resolution to the matter. Justice Merchan will take it under advisement over lunch.

That's music to our ears for the hungry reporters in the overflow room.

It's time for LUNCH!

We’re back from lunch.

What did the @lawfare team feast on today?

Well, we are creatures of habit as of late.

Chicken caesar wraps all around for me, @qjurecic, and @TylerMcBrien.

(Ben Wittes, our estimable boss and wearer of dog shirts, had a salad.)

The jury is not back yet, but Justice Merchan is on the bench to announce his ruling on whether the CSPAN photograph can come in -- the one showing Schiller and Trump together on Oct. 24.

Merchan says he will NOT allow the photo to be introduced through the paralegal.

The records need to brought in through a CSPAN records custodian, not a paralegal, Merchan says.

For the prosecution, Joshua Steinglass says that means that they would like to bring the CSPAN records custodian who testified earlier during the trial back to the stand.

Rebecca Mangold says that the prosecution has recached out to the CSPAN archivist, Dr. Browning, to get the witness here as quickly as tomorrow morning.

Correction: Rebecca Mangold says that the prosecution has recached out to the CSPAN archivist, Dr. Browning. Steinglass says that the prosecution could get the witness here as quickly as tomorrow morning.

Justice Merchan says he wants the prosecution to check with the witness to see if he can get here tomorrow morning.

We take a recess so the prosecution can check again.

Recall: The witness -- CSPAN archivist Dr. Browning -- came to New York from Tippecanoe County, Indiana.

He's not a local witness.

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1785332046467928466

The prosecution is back to announce: They were able to reach CSPAN. They stressed the travel is not booked, but they are working to make arrangements.

Justice Merchan: Look, if time were of the essence then that'd be one thing. But we agreed this morning that we'd essentially be sending the jury home for a week to do nothing. So I don't see what the prejudice would be to anyone.

Blanche confers with his team, then walks over to the prosecutions table to confer. They're trying to figure out the best way to proceed -- adjourn for the day, or press on with the defense case now and then return to finish up with the prosecution witness tomorrow?

Ok, now Steinglass is up to announce that the parties have agreed to a stipulation. The photograph exhibit will come in by agreement of the parties.

Dr. Robert Browning, hundreds of miles away in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, must be thrilled by this news.

When you really think about it, it's wild that the case against the former President kinda sorta maybe hinged on just how quickly a CSPAN archivist could get to New York City from Tippecanoe County, Indiana.

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1792624172075467185

Ok, Cohen back on the stand. Stipulation read into the record.

Hoffinger: Do you have any doubt that you had a convo w/ Trump that you should work out payment for the Stormy Daniels matter w/ Allen Weisselberg? No doubt.

Do you have any doubt that Trump gave you final sign off before you went to the bank for that deal? Cohen has no doubt.

Trump said you would be paid back? He said that.

Hoffinger tries to play a portion of a recorded conversation between Cohen and Davidson, but there's a technical issue.

She asks for a short break to figure it out. Justice Merchan agrees. Jurors file out.

Plot twist: While Browning was definitely here from Indiana last time — that’s where CSPAN’s archives are — my colleagues in the press room tell me that prosecutors said he would be traveling from *Louisiana* this time around.

He’s a mobile guy, this CSPAN archivist!

https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1792627844335411566

Ok, Hoffinger has the recording working. We hear the recorded conversation between Cohen and Davidson in October of 2017, in which Cohen says "I can't tell you how many times he said to me 'I hate the fact that we did it.'"

Cohen says he was referring to the payment to Davidson that he made on behalf of Trump for the Daniels matter. When he said "he said to me..." Cohen was referring to what Trump himself said about the Daniels deal: 'I hate the fact that we did it.'

Cohen talks about how his life has been impacted. He lost my law license, it's had an effect on his family. He's suffered personal attacks.

I have nothing further, Hoffinger concludes.

Blanche up for re-cross.

You lost your law license. Is that Trump's fault? "In part."

You plead guilty to tax crimes? Yes
Making false statements to a bank? Yes
Did Trump have anything to do with that? No

When you commit a felony in New York, you automatically lose your law license? Correct.
But you still blame Trump? Correct.

We turn to the waiver that Cohen filed waiving attorney client privilege with Costello. He wrote in that waiver that he did not believe he had an attorney client relationship w/ Costello, but that he would waive any AC communications.

But you testified this morning that you had attorney client communications with Costello?

Cohen says that at the time he talked to Costello, he accepted that Costello wanted those conversations to be attorney client privileged. But when he signed the waiver, he didn't believe that they had had an AC relationship.

Now we're on the Schiller/Trump/Cohen call on Oct. 24.

Your testimony is that on that day, in those 90 seconds, you spoke to Schiller about the 14 year old phone harasser, but then also got him to hand the phone to Trump, who you updated about the Daniels matter? Yes, sir.

In 2016, you made 425K from the Trump org? Yes.
And in 2017, you made 420K? 35K a month? Yes.

And you were Trump's personal attorney during 2017? Correct.

But you say that 35K was not for legal services, it was for the money Trump owed back to you? Yes.

Did Trump overpay for things regularly? No, sir.
So of all the time you worked for Trump, do you recall him ever just willingly overpaying for something? No, that's the first time that I recall Mr. Trump paying for any NDA.

No more questions from Blanche.

Justice Merchan turns to the prosecution.

"The People rest."

The defense calls its first witness: Daniel Sitko, a legal analyst at Blanche Law.

Sitko is a young guy who looks to be in his twenties. He's wearing glasses.

Sitko says that as a part of his work, he was asked to make a call summary chart showing calls between Cohen and Robert Costello.

Six calls were longer than half an hour, Sitko says.

One of the calls, from Memorial Day weekend of 2018, shows a 96 minute phone call between Costello and Cohen.

Now Mangold is up for the prosecution for cross examination.

There are a number of durations in the chart in which the duration is 0:00? Yes. That's when the call was not answered? Yes.

Mangold points out that Sitko testified there are 75 rows of calls between Costello and Cohen.

But that's not necessarily how many conversations there were? Right

"The defense calls ROBERT COSTELLO."

This will be interesting.

Before Costello enters, however, there's a sidebar. The parties whisper at the judge's bench, out-of-earshot.

Justice Merchan: Jurors, I apologize, but I'm going to ask you to step outside for just a few moments.

Away they go, again.

Again, I do wish we had discussed this earlier, Justice Merchan says when they're gone.

Hoffinger, for the prosecution, says that Costello's main function as a witness is to testify as an impeachment witness on prior inconsistent statements.

To the extent he is permitted to testify, the prosecution wants to limit it to impeachment for prior inconsistencies and to exclude things like Costello's opinions of Cohen...

Emil Bove, for Trump, says that Costello is testifying to rebut the government's suggestion that there was a "pressure campaign" against Costello on Trump's behalf. They want to offer testimony through Costello to respond to that...

What Costello will say is different from what Cohen testified to. What's more, he will testify that Cohen said that Trump didn't know about the Daniels payment. That's probative of the offences charged in this case.

Justice Merchan: You don't think the pressure campaign is collateral? It was introduced to show why Cohen changed his story...It goes to his credibility, not the offences charged in this case.

As Hoffinger and Bove go back and forth on this, Justice Merchan eventually waves his hands in the air. We're going to take 5 minutes, he says.

We're back.

Justice Merchan: You can cross examine as to prior inconsistent statements and you can offer some rebuttal on the pressure campaign. But I'm not going to allow it to become a trial-within-a-trial on that issue.

Now the jurors are brought back into the room.

Robert Costello -- white hair, wearing a long blue tie -- takes the stand.

Emil Bove is up for direct examination on behalf of the prosecution.

Costello explains his work history: He's in private practice now, but he was a federal prosecutor in New York before that.

He knows Michael Cohen. Met him in 2018 at the Regency Hotel in 2018. He thought the conversation was subject to attorney client privilege. Objection, sustained, answer stricken as to AC privilege.

Costello says that during that meeting the question of cooperation came up. Cohen's residence had recently been searched by the FBI, he was pacing back and forth. Cohen said he wanted to know his options.

What was your view about whether Cohen should cooperate? Objection, sustained.

Costello says he explained to Cohen that the entire legal problem he was facing would be resolved by the end of the week if he had truthful information on Trump and cooperated.

According to Costello, Cohen said "I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything on Donald Trump."

Did Trump's family come up? Objection, sustained. Please approach.

There's been a volley of objections in the past 3-5 minutes, almost all of which Merchan sustained.

We're back.

BOVE: We're still focused on the April 2018 meeting at the Regency. I want to focus narrowly: What did Cohen say about whether Trump knew about the Daniels payment?

COSTELLO: Cohen said numerous times that Trump knew nothing about the Daniels payment.

Bove pulls up this email, in which Costello tells Cohen "I'm sure you saw" the news about Giuliani joining Trump's legal team and told Cohen that his relationship w/ Giuliani could be "useful."

Bove asks about Cohen's response, in which Cohen said it was great news for Rudy and that he owes Costello a call.

The prosecution launches a series of objections to several questions about this email, which are sustained.

"Geez," Costello exclaims.

What did Cohen tell you about communications with Giualini?

He said that I could tell Giuliani that my firm was on his team, but that he wasn't going to announce it to the press. That's why he used the term "backchannel."

Costello says that Cohen wanted him to find out how the SDNY investigation began.

BOVE: So Cohen was trying to get information *from* Giuliani?

COSTELLO: Yes

More objections, more sustained.

Costello lets out an audible sigh.

Justice Merchan is frustrated. He asks the jury to step out.

JUSTICE MERCHAN addresses COSTELLO: I want to talk about proper decorum in my courtroom.

He reprimands Costello, telling him not to say "geez" or make other responses when he doesn't like a ruling from the court.

Do you understand? Costello says he does.

Bove displays a series of calls between Cohen and Costello in June of 2018.

Bove displays an email between the two around that time, in which Costello says "please remember if you want to communicate something, please let me know and I will see that it gets done..."

Bove asks what he meant by that, but as Costello launches into a monologue about Cohen's complaints about another law firm, Justice Merchan sustains objections. Please just answer the question asked, Merchan says.

BOVE: Mr. Costello, did you ever put any pressure on Michael Cohen about anything?

COSTELLO: No

BOVE: Did Mr. Cohen ever put a pressure on you? Objection, sustained.

In dealing with Cohen, who did you owe an obligation to? Michael Cohen. Costello insists that his professional duty as a lawyer was to Cohen alone, not Trump.

You've testified in Congress about this case? I did, the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday.

Costello also says he's done media appearances about the case.

No further questions from the defense.

Hoffinger up for cross examination.

Your law partner, Jeff Citron, emailed Michael Cohen about you representing him? The email speaks for itself, Costello says.

Hoffinger pulls up the email. It's confusing to me, Costello says. It looks like it's from Cohen to Citron, but "I guess it's in a string."

The email chain is admitted into evidence.

At the time, you had heard about the Michael Cohen investigation in the news? Yes

And you were interested in having him as a client? No, I went along to the meeting with Jeff Citron. Citron knew Michael Cohen for about 10 years.

But you knew from the news that Cohen was Trump's personal attorney? Yes
And so that would be a big win for you and your firm? I would say no, I didn't want him as a client with the firm.

Would you announce him as a client on your firm website? I don't know what the firm would do.

Hoffinger displays an email dated April 20, 2018 from Costello to his son. "I will be on the team," Costello wrote, telling his son that he didn't know when it would be announced but that he has been authorized to tell Giuliani that he would be representing Michael Cohen.

Based on news with the search warrants, you knew Cohen had been through a traumatic event? You knew of the FBI raid of his residence?

"I wouldn't use the term raid, they executed a search warrant."

Laughs from the overflow at the irony of this statement. IYKYK.

COSTELLO: Cohen told us 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.

HOFFINGER: You told the grand jury that you thought Cohen was acting like a drama queen?

Costello tries to respond with a monologue. Merchan instructs him to answer "yes" or "no" to the question if he can.

I said I didn't know whether he was just being a drama queen.

Merchan asks counsel to approach the bench. Another sidebar.

Jurors, we're going to stop at this time, Justice Merchan says when everyone returns to their seats.

Once the jurors are gone, Merchan asks how much Hoffinger has left on cross examination.

About half an hour, 45 minutes, she says.

And at this point, the defense says it does not plan to call any other witnesses.

Blanche pops up: Your honor, we have a motion for an order of dismissal.

He launches into argument:

First, there's no evidence that the records were false. There's no dispute that Cohen provided legal services to Trump in 2017.

Second, there's no evidence of intent to defraud in connection with these filings. These were records generated in connection to Cohen's personal relationship w/ Trump in 2017. He was paid first by a Trust, and then from the personal bank account over which Trump had sole authority. The checks were then sent for him to sign *in the White House.* If there was intent to defraud, then the records would have been entered in a different manner, for services that weren't actually rendered, or with a little bit of evidence of intent to defraud, of which there is none.

There's also no evidence that anyone was thinking about a campaign finance charge when Cohen and Weisselberg met in 2017. So there's no evidence of an effort to conceal anything by Trump or anyone involved.

There's talk of this being used to cover up a conspiracy to influence the election. But there has to be something unlawful about that effort to influence...there's no evidence of any criminal intent behind the plan to publish positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponent. No evidence that Pecker, Trump, Howard, or anyone else had any criminal intent at the time they engaged in this conduct. There was no discussion at the 2015 meeting about "catch and kill." So we don't have evidence of any criminal conduct at this first meeting where the conspiracy was allegedly born.

Look to Karen Mcdougal, Blanche continues. She didn't even want her story out.

With Sajudin, that was a "demonstratively false" story...so if there was a conspiracy to influence the election, how is keeping a false story from the voters criminal?

That's not a catch and kill, and it's certainly not a criminal catch and kill.

When it comes to Daniels, AMI wanted nothing to do with that. If it was really a conspiracy, AMI jumped out of that conspiracy. Mr. Pecker insisted that he wanted nothing to do with it.

So the three separate incidents that supposedly had conspiratorial criminal intent had none of it. And so the court should enter a dismissal before verdict.

Blanche continues: A key part of the story is that on Oct. 24, Cohen spoke to Keith Schiller who handed the phone to Trump.

Merchan: So you're asking me to find the call not credible as a matter of law?

Yes, Blanche says.

Merchan: So you want me to take it out of the jury's hands... that this person is so not credible that his testimony can't be considered?

Blanche: Yes, he testified and he lied under oath in this courtroom.

Merchan: You said his lies are irrefutable? So you think he'll fool 12 New Yorkers to believe in this lie?

Merchan says he'll hear from the People now.

Colangelo is up to respond. The trial record rebuts the record that there is no falsity, he says. He points to testimony of Cohen, McConney, Trump's office of government ethics form in which he disclosed reimbursing Cohen, public statements from Trump saying he reimbursed Cohen....

Regarding intent to defraud: One point raised by Blanche actually goes to the causation element, Colangelo says. It's more than sufficient as a matter of law if the defendant "set in motion" the events that led to the false entries knowing that that was reasonable foreseeable consequence of his actions.

What's more, Colangelo says, the evidence shows intent to defraud and intent to deceive government regulators.

As to the "step up" crime intent, the "unlawful means" of the election conspiracy included campaign finance violations, other false document entries, etc.

JUSTICE MERCHAN: Thank you, I'll reserve a decision.

But Blanche wants a last word: A conspiracy doesn't happen just because three people get together and talk.

You have no evidence of catch and kill at the 2015 Trump Tower meeting. You have a legal expense that's recorded, and there's a lawyer who performed legal services. How else is Ms. Tarasoff in accounts payable supposed to record that?

JUSTICE MERCHAN: As I said, I'm going to reserve decision. I'll see you both at 9:30 am tomorrow.

Did Blanche land any punches as he wrapped up his cross examination of Cohen? What happened when Bob Costello "stared down" the judge? And why did the prosecution (almost) need an emergency flight for a CSPAN archivist?

We'll discuss live at 6 PM ET!

Thanks to all who followed along today!

@lawfare is a non-profit newsroom, and our coverage is funded through the generosity of our material supporters.

If you value our trial coverage, we hope you'll consider donating to our support our work: givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…