Podcast Summary
Defense presents witnesses after Michael Cohen's testimony: The defense focused on October phone calls between Cohen and Schiller, arguing Trump was preoccupied and unable to authorize payments, and the government failed to prove its case.
During the trial of Donald Trump, the defense presented two defense witnesses after Michael Cohen's lengthy cross-examination and redirect examination. The defense's focus during Cohen's examination was on the October phone calls between Cohen and Keith Schiller, emphasizing that Trump was preoccupied during those calls and therefore unable to authorize the payments in question. The defense argued that the government had failed to prove its case and made these points during the closing arguments. The trial continued with a charge conference, where arguments from both sides were discussed. Overall, the cross-examination of Michael Cohen and the defense's presentation of witnesses set the stage for the remainder of the trial.
Michael Cohen's Legal Services to Trump in 2017: Michael Cohen argued for reimbursement of services already rendered instead of a retainer agreement, and financially benefited from his association with Trump, totaling over $4 million, but claimed more to gain from an acquittal.
Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to Donald Trump, provided legal services to Trump and his family without a retainer agreement throughout 2017, even after Trump became president and Cohen was receiving regular payments. Cohen's defense argued that these payments were not for retainer services, but rather reimbursement for services already rendered. Additionally, Cohen financially benefited greatly from his association with Trump through book sales, podcast, and merchandise sales, totaling over $4 million. Despite this, Cohen claimed he would benefit financially more from an acquittal than a conviction, as it would provide more material for his future endeavors. This argument, while not based on a strong logical foundation, may have attempted to sway the jury by appealing to their emotions and perceptions of Cohen's financial gain from Trump.
Defense's inconsistent handling of Cohen's testimony: The defense's inconsistent acceptance of Cohen's testimony when it benefited them and disregard when it was damaging, along with their risky decision to bring up the Redfinch payment, opened the door for deeper investigation into Trump's poll manipulation attempts.
During the trial of Michael Cohen, Todd Blanche, Cohen's attorney, argued that there was no falsification of business records regarding the payments made to Cohen. He emphasized that Cohen had always been paid for legal services without a retainer agreement. However, it was revealed that Cohen had stolen $30,000 from the Trump Organization, and he admitted to it candidly. The defense's inconsistency in accepting Cohen's testimony when it was favorable to them and disregarding it when it was damaging to their client was pointed out. This inconsistency can be used by the prosecution to challenge the credibility of Cohen's testimony and the defense's arguments. The prolonged questioning about Cohen's theft of $30,000 opened the door for the prosecution to delve deeper into the details of the $50,000 payment to Redfinch, which was initially ruled inadmissible by the judge. The defense took a risk by bringing up the issue of the payment to Redfinch, but it ultimately led to the revelation of Trump's attempts to manipulate polls.
Defense attorney's aggressive cross-examination leads to revelation of Redfinch polling contract payment: Maintain focus on main arguments during trial, avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant details.
That during the trial, defense attorney Todd Blanche's aggressive cross-examination of Michael Cohen led the prosecution to bring up details about a Redfinch polling contract, which Cohen had paid for in cash and in a paper bag. The defense had opened the door to questioning the legitimacy of the payment method, and the prosecution used this opportunity to explain the contract to the jury. This revelation added to the ongoing narrative about Trump's alleged penny-pinching behavior. In her redirect examination, Susan Hoffinger effectively refocused the jury's attention on the defense's themes by responding to the prosecution's points without getting bogged down in the details. The key takeaway is that in a trial, it's essential for both defense and prosecution lawyers to maintain their focus on their main arguments and avoid getting sidetracked by irrelevant details.
Distinguishing Mistakes from Lies in Trials: Mistakes and lies are not the same. Understanding this difference adds fairness and maturity to trial proceedings.
During trials, it's crucial to distinguish between mistakes and lies. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger emphasized this point during a discussion, using the example of Michael Cohen mistakenly recalling a year in a question. Defense lawyers often pounce on such inconsistencies, labeling them as lies. However, it's essential to understand that mistakes are not the same as intentional deception. To illustrate, a prosecutor might use the analogy of knocking over a glass versus picking it up and throwing it. Both are different actions. In the context of the trial, Susan Hoffinger pointed to an instance where a defense lawyer made an error during cross-examination regarding grand jury secrecy. The judge graciously allowed the lawyer to correct the mistake, demonstrating fairness. Similarly, when a witness makes a mistake, it's important to acknowledge it as such and not automatically assume a lie. This understanding adds maturity and realism to the trial proceedings.
Dispute over C-SPAN video in Trump trial: Judge allowed state to call C-SPAN witness to authenticate video, but defense chose to start their case and stipulate to its authenticity
During the trial, the defense and prosecution had a disagreement over the admission of a C-SPAN video showing Donald Trump and his bodyguard together just before a phone call mentioned in the testimony of Michael Cohen. The state argued that this video corroborated Cohen's testimony that Trump could have handed the phone to his bodyguard, while the defense argued that the foundation for its authenticity had not been properly laid. The judge allowed the state to call a witness from C-SPAN to authenticate the video, but the defense had the option to either start their case immediately or delay it until the witness could be present. Ultimately, the defense chose to start their case and stipulated to the authenticity of the video as part of the record. The impact of this evidence on the jury's perception of the case remains to be seen. A stipulation is an agreement between parties on a fact, which, once accepted by the court, becomes part of the record that the jury can consider as true.
Clarifying key points and aligning with the prosecution's case: Hope Hicks' testimony highlighted Cohen's self-interest and aligned with the prosecution's argument, while unexpected defense witness Bob Costello's testimony did not disrupt the trial.
Learning from the trial testimony is that Hope Hicks' clear and confident testimony helped clarify key points and underscored the prosecution's case against Michael Cohen. Her testimony, which emphasized Cohen's desire to be paid back for his actions, aligns with the overall argument that Cohen acted out of self-interest rather than charitable kindness. Additionally, the unexpected appearance of Bob Costello as a defense witness, who had previously testified in the grand jury, did not derail the prosecution's case as there was no element of surprise since the prosecution had already heard his testimony a year ago. Overall, the skilled performances of the lawyers involved in the trial showcased the importance of clear and confident testimony in complex legal cases.
Lawyer Communications with Cohen Raise Concerns of Interference: Lawyer Bob Costello, who represented Bannon and Giuliani, had privileged communications with Michael Cohen during investigations. Cohen waived privilege, revealing these communications. Costello advised Bannon not to respond to a subpoena and offered inside info to Cohen, raising concerns of potential interference.
Bob Costello, a lawyer who represented Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, had communications with Michael Cohen during the time of investigations against Cohen. These communications were privileged but were later disclosed due to Cohen's waiver of privilege. Costello also advised Steve Bannon not to respond to a congressional subpoena, which was deemed objectively unreasonable. Costello's closeness to Giuliani and his offer of inside information to Cohen raised concerns of potential interference and pressure from high-level individuals. Michael Cohen testified that he believed anything he shared with Costello would likely reach Trump's ears, and he ultimately decided not to hire him due to these concerns. Despite Cohen's testimony, Costello denies applying pressure and claims he was only thinking about Cohen's case. The communications between Cohen and Costello add to the perception of a "classic mob-like" situation, where lawyers act on behalf of the boss rather than the underling, and the boss attempts to keep potential witnesses close and prevent them from cooperating against him.
Disruptive Witness Behavior in Michael Cohen's Trial: A witness, Robert Costello, was criticized for ignoring objections and going beyond the scope of questions during Michael Cohen's trial, disrupting the proceedings and raising concerns about his impartiality and credibility.
During the trial of Michael Cohen, one of the defense witnesses, Robert Costello, was criticized for his behavior in the courtroom. Costello, who had previously cooperated with investigators, was accused of trying to make the case against Donald Trump during his testimony. He repeatedly ignored objections from the prosecution and went beyond the scope of questions, leading the judge to strike his answers from the record multiple times. Despite being warned, Costello continued this behavior, raising concerns that he had an agenda and was not acting as an impartial witness. This disruptive behavior not only affected the trial but also raised questions about Costello's credibility and motives.
Behavior of attorney Cassello during Michael Cohen trial criticized: Attorney Cassello's disrespectful behavior towards the judge during the Michael Cohen trial reflected a larger issue of disregard for the rule of law and the judicial system, emphasizing the importance of maintaining decorum and respect in the courtroom.
During the Michael Cohen trial, the behavior of one of the attorneys, Cassello, was deemed unhelpful and disrespectful towards the judge, Marshawn. Cassello's partisan and defensive demeanor towards his former client and the court was criticized by the speaker. This behavior was not only unhelpful during the trial but also reflected a larger issue of disregard for the rule of law and the judicial system, as seen in Donald Trump's rhetoric and the conduct of some congressional leaders. The judge, Marshawn, had to clear the courtroom due to Cassello's behavior and acknowledged the importance of press access to the trial record. This incident highlights the importance of maintaining decorum and respect in the courtroom, especially during high-profile trials.
The difference in demeanor between Michael Cohen and the defense witness: Michael Cohen maintained composure during intense cross-examination, while the defense witness went off the rails, affecting jurors' perception. The trial continues with charge conference, jury instructions, and summations upcoming.
Learning from the latest episode of "Prosecuting Donald Trump" is the significant difference in demeanor between Michael Cohen and the first defense witness, a former prosecutor. Cohen maintained his composure during intense cross-examination, even when questioned about his wife and daughter. In contrast, the defense witness went off the rails, which was off-putting to the jurors. Additionally, the defense made their expected motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of the government's case. The trial is currently underway with a charge conference scheduled for later this week, followed by jury instructions and summations the following week. The jury will be told how to decide the case, and this legal component will be discussed in detail on the next episode. Listeners are encouraged to send in questions for the show, which can be reached at 917-342-2934 or prosecutingtrumpquestions@nbcuni.com. The show is produced by Vicki Virgolina, with Jameris Perez as the associate producer, Kathryn Anderson as the audio engineer, Bryson Barnes as the head of audio production, Ayesha Turner as the executive producer for MSNBC audio, and Rebecca Cutler as the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. "Prosecuting Donald Trump" is available on various podcast platforms.