Podcast Summary
Prosecution focuses on completing Trump's story during second day of testimony: The prosecution aimed to minimize surprises for the jury by completing Trump's story during his direct examination, while also ensuring a clear understanding of events leading up to the election and inauguration.
That during the second day of Donald Trump's testimony in the New York criminal trial, the prosecution focused on completing the story of events leading up to the election and the inauguration during the substantive part of his direct examination. Additionally, they worked to minimize potential surprises for the jury regarding Cohen's past guilty pleas and lies. An intriguing moment came when questions arose about Cohen's meeting with Trump at the White House in February 2017, which occurred after Trump's inauguration and before the hush money payments began. The exhibit 35 document showed that the payments, including reimbursements and bonuses, totaled $420,000. Overall, the trial's judge, Judge Marchand, has shown impressive control and organization, contrasting with Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago case.
Allen Weisselberg's notes crucial for Michael Cohen case: Weisselberg's notes revealing $35k monthly legal expenses for Cohen were key evidence in the case, despite defense arguments of unusual retainer for Trump.
That Allen Weisselberg's notes on exhibit 35 played a crucial role in the case against Michael Cohen. The notes, which showed $35,000 monthly legal expenses, were divided by 12 to reveal an annual retainer. Prosecutors kept returning to this evidence as an anchor point in their case. During Cohen's direct examination, he admitted to having difficulty remembering the exact amount of the retainer and had to check with Weisselberg to confirm it. The defense argued that it was unusual for Cohen to have a flat-rate retainer with Donald Trump, who was known for his penny-pinching ways. However, it was later conceded in court that the payments were indeed reimbursements. The trial focused on Cohen's lies to Congress, the FBI, and the judge, and the direct examination aimed to let him explain and take responsibility for those lies.
Cohen received support from attorneys during investigations: During Trump's presidency, Cohen received assistance from attorneys Taylor and Giuliani during investigations into hush money payments and lies to Congress, reflecting a White House mentality to protect Trump at all costs, and the use of attorney-client privilege to limit communication release.
During the Trump presidency, Michael Cohen received support from attorney John M. G. Taylor (Costello) and Rudy Giuliani to help him navigate investigations into his hush money payments and potential lies to Congress. This occurred during two separate investigations: one related to his testimony regarding the Moscow project and the other regarding the hush money payments and personal taxes. Cohen was under the impression that Attorney General Jeff Sessions could help resolve the FEC complaint, demonstrating the mentality within the White House to protect Trump at all costs. This situation echoed efforts to prevent cooperating witnesses, such as Flynn and Gates, from flipping. The attorney-client privilege was invoked to limit the release of certain communications between Cohen and his legal team.
Misstep by Cohen's Lawyer Raises Questions of Collusion: Cohen was under pressure to be loyal to Trump but chose to prioritize his family and country, while a mistake by his lawyer raised questions of potential collusion
During Michael Cohen's testimony, Todd Blanche, one of Cohen's lawyers, made a mistake when discussing Cohen's lies before Congress. Blanche argued that Cohen had ample time to prepare his false statement as part of a joint defense agreement, which included the president's lawyer. However, this was a misstep, as it raised questions about potential collusion and coordination between Cohen and the president. Additionally, Cohen's testimony revealed pressure from figures like Costello, who offered him benefits in exchange for loyalty to Trump. Despite this pressure, Cohen ultimately chose to prioritize his family and country over the president. The trial continues with cross-examination and redirect, with both sides using the delay to strategize and prepare their cases.
Understanding the psychology of cooperating witnesses: Cooperating witnesses require self-awareness and honesty, but the difference between the two can be confusing. The jury's decision is based on credibility and corroboration, not feelings or remorse. Cross-examination is crucial to challenge witness credibility and inconsistencies.
Being a cooperating witness in a trial, especially in white-collar cases, requires a high level of self-awareness and honesty. However, the difference between having self-awareness and being completely candid with oneself and accurately recounting events can be confusing. Some witnesses may struggle to admit their wrongdoings and may not have a clear understanding of their moral compass. This can make their testimony less credible in the eyes of the jury. The jury's decision is based on the credibility of the witness and the corroboration of their testimony, not on their feelings or level of remorse. The cross-examination is a crucial part of the trial where the defense lawyer tries to challenge the witness's credibility and inconsistencies in their testimony. The discussion highlighted the complexity of dealing with cooperating witnesses and the importance of understanding their psychology and trajectory in coming to terms with their actions.
Highlighting inconsistencies in Michael Cohen's statements under oath to damage credibility: During Michael Cohen's trial, the prosecution attacked his credibility by pointing out his inconsistent statements under oath and previous lies. The defense tried to explain these discrepancies away, but the jury was left to decide on the reliability of Cohen's testimony based on his past actions.
During the trial of Michael Cohen, his inconsistent statements under oath and previous lies were highlighted by the prosecution to undermine his credibility. Chad Blinch, a legal analyst, explained that Cohen's defense team was trying to attack his credibility by showing the jury that he had lied in multiple cases, including during his guilty plea before Judge Polly. Additionally, the defense was able to point out inconsistencies between what Cohen said during his testimony and what he had said previously. This allowed the defense to argue in closing that Cohen was either trying to make himself look better or that his memory was bad, which raises questions about the reliability of his current testimony. Furthermore, the prosecution effectively used Cohen's own words from his podcast to highlight the contrast between his public persona and his courtroom demeanor, further damaging his credibility.
Confirmation of call dates through telephone records: Phone records verified Michael Cohen's calls to Trump's bodyguard on October 24 and 26, adding credibility to his testimony and the ongoing investigation.
Michael Cohen's testimony about calls related to the Stormy Daniels situation and the exact dates were corroborated through telephone records. On October 24, Cohen called Trump's bodyguard, Schiller, to speak to Trump regarding the progress of the deal. However, the most important calls occurred on October 26. During cross-examination, it was clear that on October 24, Cohen was contacting Schiller about harassing calls he was receiving and wanted the Secret Service to investigate. Cohen's defense lawyer raised objections during this part of the testimony, but the importance of these calls was not the substance of the conversation but rather the confirmation of the exact dates through telephone records. This corroboration adds credibility to Cohen's testimony and the ongoing investigation.
Discussed call between Cohen and Schiller during Michael Cohen trial: The defense used a seemingly insignificant call between Cohen and Schiller to challenge Cohen's credibility, potentially impacting the prosecution's case in the Michael Cohen trial.
During the Michael Cohen trial, a minute-long call between Cohen and Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, was discussed. While the call wasn't lengthy or detailed, Todd Blanchard, a legal analyst, believes it could have been damaging to the prosecution due to its potential impact on the prosecutor's credibility. In trials, particularly organized crime cases, the prosecutor's credibility is often put on trial, and the defense may argue that the prosecutor has coached witnesses. In this case, the prosecution's decision to use telephone records and other unseen evidence to corroborate Cohen's testimony, while he was still testifying, was risky. This approach tethered Cohen to the evidence and allowed the defense to challenge his memory and credibility. The longer, more critical calls between Cohen and Trump, which involved the payment authorization, occurred two days later and are more damaging to the defense. However, the decision to focus on the Schiller call could be seen as a strategic choice by the defense to sow doubt in the jury's mind about Cohen's credibility.
Defense argues prosecution selectively presented evidence during Michael Cohen trial: The defense accused the prosecution of shaping the jury's story by selectively providing texts during cross-examination and failing to prepare Cohen for direct examination. The lack of certain texts during the trial also raised concerns about credibility.
During the Michael Cohen trial, the defense argued that the prosecution selectively provided certain texts to refresh Cohen's recollection during cross-examination, potentially shaping the story they wanted the jury to hear. The defense suggested that the prosecution failed to protect Cohen during direct examination, allowing him to be questioned about specific dates and times without proper preparation. The defense also pointed out that the prosecution did not provide Cohen with certain texts during the trial, such as those between Cohen and Keith Schiller on October 24th. This could be seen as an attempt to undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case. The defense's argument is significant because it highlights the importance of proper witness preparation and the potential for selective use of evidence during trials. Ultimately, the impact of this argument on the trial outcome remains to be seen, but it underscores the importance of thorough examination and cross-examination in ensuring a fair trial.
Prosecution may have missed questioning Cohen about Trump and Daniels during cross-examination: Despite a potential oversight during Michael Cohen's trial, prosecutors are likely to ask about harassing calls, multiple topics during phone calls, and separate recollections of conversations if given another chance.
During the Michael Cohen trial, it came to light that the prosecution may have missed questioning Cohen about certain details related to Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels during cross-examination. The mistake was acknowledged as unfortunate, but the extent of the prosecution's knowledge and why they missed this detail is unclear. If the prosecution were to have a chance to redirect their questioning, they would likely ask Cohen about the harassing calls, multiple topics during phone calls, and any separate recollections of conversations with Trump before the 26th about Stormy Daniels. However, prosecutors don't always get to talk to their witnesses during breaks or overnight, so they have to operate under the assumption that they might not get another chance to ask questions. The trial is ongoing, and summations and the jury charge are expected to be given all in one day.
Elected officials attacking the criminal legal system: The ongoing Trump trial has seen elected officials making statements that undermine the criminal justice system, prompting calls for reforms to protect the constitutional system.
During the ongoing trial of Donald Trump, the jury is responsible for deciding the facts, while the judge applies the law. In the beginning, Trump was frequently violating a gag order by making statements that prompted contempt motions. However, since a warning of potential incarceration, there have been fewer such instances. Instead, Trump's surrogates have made denigrating statements about the criminal justice system and specific individuals involved in the case. Although there's no clear evidence that Trump directed these surrogates, some have reported seeing him editing their statements. The prosecution has asked the judge to ensure identifiable members of Congress do not make such statements in court. The troubling trend of elected officials attacking the criminal legal system undermines the constitutional system and calls for necessary reforms.
Congress members causing distractions during Trump trial: Judge expresses concern over congress members entering courtroom during trial, defense attorney acknowledges issue but has no control, prosecutors and judge have limited control over witness testimony.
Members of Congress, who have been attending the Trump trial in person with security entourages, have been causing distractions for the jurors and those in the courtroom. This issue was brought up in a sidebar between the judge and the defense attorney, with the judge expressing concern over the timing of these entrances during cross-examination. The defense attorney acknowledged the issue but stated that he has no control over their actions as they have a right to be present in the public courtroom. However, the prosecutors and the judge also have limited control over what witnesses, including high-profile figures like Michael Cohen, can say during the trial. As the trial progresses, it remains to be seen how the prosecutors will address this issue. Listeners are encouraged to send in their questions, and new episodes will be released twice a week to keep you updated on the latest developments.