Podcast Summary
Michael Cohen's Testimony Corroborated by Evidence: Michael Cohen's testimony during the Trump trial was supported by various pieces of evidence, including call logs and records, adding credibility to the prosecution's case.
That Michael Cohen's direct examination during the trial of former President Donald Trump was a significant event, with Cohen providing testimony that was corroborated by various pieces of evidence. The testimony was supported by witnesses who testified about technical aspects of record-keeping, such as cell phone and landline records. Cohen's testimony centered around phone calls he had with Trump, Ellen Weisselberg, Keith Davidson, David Pecker, and Hope Hicks. Each time Cohen mentioned a phone call, the prosecution presented evidence in the form of call logs and other records to bolster his testimony. Overall, the corroborating evidence helped strengthen Cohen's testimony and added credibility to the prosecution's case against Trump. Additionally, the discussion touched on the upcoming summations and open issues that the prosecution team is considering.
The Role of Corroborating Evidence in Establishing Witness Credibility: Phone records can provide real-time corroboration during testimony, adding credibility and serving as a mini-summation. They can also be shown to witnesses beforehand for comparison during summation.
During trials, corroborating evidence, such as cell phone records, plays a crucial role in establishing the truthfulness of a witness's testimony. In the case of Michael Cohen, these records provided evidence of phone calls that Cohen had discussed, adding credibility to his testimony. The use of these records in real-time during Cohen's testimony served as a mini-summation, providing simultaneous corroboration. However, there are different ways to use phone records in trials. Sometimes, the records are shown to the witness beforehand, and the witness's testimony is compared to the records during summation. The independence of the evidence becomes an important argument for the accuracy of the witness's testimony. The Stormy Daniels trial provided a glimpse into Michael Cohen's character, and despite the drama surrounding his testimony, it came across as smooth and coherent during direct examination.
Insights into Michael Cohen's complex relationship with Trump: Cohen's loyalty and respect for Trump turned to hurt and anger when loyalty wasn't reciprocated, leading him to make decisions like paying hush money and recording conversations.
Michael Cohen's testimony provided insight into the complex and emotional relationship between him and Donald Trump. Cohen described how he went from working for Trump in private practice to becoming his personal attorney and fixer. He spoke about the loyalty and respect he had for Trump, who micromanaged him and made him feel important. However, when Cohen's loyalty was not reciprocated, he became hurt and angry, leading him to make decisions like paying hush money out of his own account. The defense may try to use this against Cohen, arguing that his actions were driven by his unrequited loyalty and ego. Additionally, the fact that Cohen recorded conversations with Trump without his knowledge could be used to suggest that he was willing to act behind Trump's back. Overall, Cohen's testimony shed light on the personal dynamics of their relationship and the potential motivations behind his actions.
Michael Cohen's Role as Trump's Fixer: Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, went to great lengths to protect and secure Trump's approval through lying, threatening, and billing. His actions stemmed from a deep sense of hurt and a desire for validation.
Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to Donald Trump, acted as a "fixer" for Trump, going to great lengths to protect him and secure his approval. This included lying, threatening the press, and billing people for Trump's debts. Cohen's motivation was to receive Trump's approval and recognition for his efforts. His current actions can be seen as a continuation of this pattern, driven by a deep sense of hurt and a desire for validation. During his testimony, Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, used mostly leading questions to keep the examination focused and prevent tangents. Despite cooperating with the government, Cohen is not seeking a reduced sentence.
Concerns over leading questions during Michael Cohen's trial: Prosecutors' use of leading questions during Cohen's direct examination raised credibility issues and revealed a scheme to suppress and disseminate false information, highlighting the importance of clear questioning and unbiased information.
During the Michael Cohen trial, there were concerns about the use of leading questions during his direct examination. While prosecutors are not supposed to ask leading questions during direct examination, there were several instances where they did so. This raised credibility issues, as the jury needs to hear Cohen's testimony in his own words. Additionally, it was noted that Cohen was able to give more fulsome answers during cross-examination, which may have contributed to his perceived humanization. Furthermore, it was revealed that the National Enquirer's catch and kill scheme involved not just suppressing stories but also disseminating false ones, which kept the entire scheme secret and potentially defrauded the electorate. Cohen also explained a recorded conversation with Trump regarding payments to Karen McDougal, which included a reference to what would happen if Trump or Cohen were to be hit by a truck. Overall, the trial highlighted the importance of clear and unbiased questioning during witness testimony and the potential consequences of suppressing information.
Trump's Campaign Paid Hush Money to Keep Damaging Stories Private: During the 2016 campaign, Trump and his team paid large sums to prevent damaging stories from being published, using intermediaries and cash to maintain plausible deniability and avoid a paper trail.
That during the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump and his team paid large sums of money to buy the rights to potentially damaging stories about Trump from American Media Inc. (AMI) through intermediaries, including Michael Cohen and David Pecker, to prevent their publication. The payments were made to keep these stories out of the public domain and protect Trump's reputation. The use of intermediaries and cash payments was aimed at maintaining plausible deniability for Trump and avoiding a paper trail that could be used against him. This strategy, as described in the testimony, is reminiscent of mafia-like tactics and highlights the lengths Trump and his team went to in order to protect his image during the campaign. The absence of written records directly from Trump is a challenge for the prosecution, but the testimony from witnesses like Cohen and Pecker provides important context and evidence for the jury to consider.
Masterful Prosecution Strategy in Michael Cohen Trial: The prosecution's strategic order of witnesses and evidence, Michael Cohen's believable testimony, and the presentation of concrete evidence, such as the Stormy Daniels payment bank statement, led to the successful outcome of the Michael Cohen trial.
That the prosecution's strategic order of presenting witnesses and evidence in the Michael Cohen trial was masterful. The presentation of Michael Cohen's testimony, which was already corroborated by other witnesses, made it more believable. The cooperation of all witnesses and the judge's cooperation in scheduling also contributed to the trial's success. A crucial point in the trial was the handling of the Stormy Daniels payment. Michael Cohen testified that he learned about the attempt to sell Stormy Daniels' story on October 8, 2016, and went to Donald Trump for instructions. Trump told Cohen to work with Weisselberg and "just pay it." This led to the creation of fraudulent business records to hide the payment. The bank statement (exhibit 35) showing the wire transfer to Stormy Daniels' lawyer was critical evidence in this case. It was not a piece of scratch paper but an official banking document that could not be disputed. Cohen and Weisselberg discussed and confirmed the details of the payment together before presenting it to Trump. This collaboration and the presentation of concrete evidence were key to the prosecution's case.
Missing Witness: Allen Weisselberg's Absence in Trump Trial: The jury in the Trump Organization trial is left in the dark about Allen Weisselberg's financial relationship and whereabouts, as he's serving a sentence and not called to testify. The judge denied the admission of his severance agreement, leaving the DA to explain his absence and ties to Trump and the organization.
The jury in the ongoing trial involving the Trump Organization is currently left in the dark about the financial relationship and whereabouts of Allen Weisselberg, the organization's former CFO and longtime confidant of Donald Trump. Weisselberg, who is currently serving a 4-month sentence at Rikers Island, has not been called to testify despite his central role in various financial transactions under investigation. The jury was expected to learn about Weisselberg's absence and relationship with Trump and the Trump Organization through his severance agreement, but the judge denied its admission due to its lack of relevance to the trial's facts. The DA is now considering making another argument to explain Weisselberg's absence and his financial ties to Trump and the Trump Organization. This missing witness situation could potentially impact the jury's understanding of the case.
Judge denies introduction of separation agreement between Trump and Weisselberg: The judge refused to admit a separation agreement between Trump and Weisselberg due to lack of relevance and insufficient proof, while both parties don't seem eager for Weisselberg to testify. The absence of certain witnesses, like Keith Schiller, remains unexplained, potentially leading to unfavorable inferences.
In the ongoing trial, the judge has denied the introduction of a separation agreement between Trump and Weisselberg, as it doesn't move the ball in proving any element of the offense and doesn't satisfy the burden of proof. The defense doesn't want it in because it might reflect consciousness of guilt or concern on Trump's part. The situation is complicated as neither party seems to want Weisselberg to testify. Regarding missing witnesses, ordinarily, reasons for their absence cannot be discussed, but in peculiar circumstances, the failure to call a witness by the party who has the power to do so might justify an unfavorable inference. So, in the case of Keith Schiller, a bodyguard who was present during Stormy Daniels' alleged visit to Trump's room, it's unclear why he wasn't subpoenaed. It's possible that the prosecution tried to interview him but he invoked the 5th Amendment, making it a complicated issue.
Understanding the complexities of subpoenas and immunizations: Prosecutors must carefully weigh potential evidence against the risk of immunizing someone who could potentially lie under oath. The Speedy Trial Act can sometimes be tolled, delaying trial dates. Public scrutiny helps ensure an efficient legal process.
The legal process surrounding subpoenas and immunizations is complex and nuanced. Believing that a truthful answer may incriminate someone does not automatically mean they can be subpoenaed and forced to testify. Prosecutors must weigh the potential evidence against the risk of immunizing someone who could potentially lie under oath. Additionally, the Speedy Trial Act, which guarantees a defendant's right to a speedy trial, can sometimes be tolled, meaning the trial date can be delayed. Citizens do not have a direct mechanism to influence the speed of criminal trials, but the transparency and public scrutiny of the legal process can help ensure that it moves along efficiently. The close relationship between certain individuals and high-profile figures can make it difficult to determine their potential criminal culpability and whether they will tell the truth if subpoenaed.
Public's Role in Enforcing a Speedy Trial Right: Though the public shares an interest in a speedy trial, only the defendant can enforce this right in court. The prosecutor represents the public's interest, but in exceptional cases, a judge may appoint a lawyer for the public to argue for their interest.
While both the defendant and the public have a right to a speedy trial under the law, only the defendant can bring a case to enforce that right. The public's interest in a speedy trial is represented by the prosecutor, who has the authority to act on behalf of the public. However, in rare circumstances, a judge may appoint a lawyer to argue for the public's interest if they believe the prosecutor is not acting in the public's best interest. The public does not have the ability to bring a case directly to enforce this right. This discussion relates to ongoing cases involving the former President Donald Trump, where the public's interest in a speedy trial is a significant factor.
Michael Cohen's trial against Donald Trump continues with cross-examination led by Todd Blanch,: The Michael Cohen trial against Donald Trump continues, with cross-examination ongoing and potential summations to follow. Trump requested a day off for his son's graduation, causing the court to not sit on Friday.
The trial of Michael Cohen against Donald Trump is ongoing, with Cohen's direct examination concluding and cross-examination beginning today. This process, which tests credibility, is being led by Todd Blanch, Trump's lawyer. The trial will continue through the week, with potential summations to follow. The court is not sitting on Friday due to Trump's request to attend his son's graduation, and there may be a defense case presented as well. Mary and the speaker will continue to bring updates twice a week on the podcast. A special edition of the podcast, "Prosecuting Donald Trump," will air next week on MSNBC, featuring personal stories from the trial and taking questions from viewers. The podcast is produced by a talented team, and can be found wherever podcasts are available. Stay tuned for updates on this significant legal proceedings.