Podcast Summary
Testimony in Trump's civil fraud case: Donald Trump attempted to intimidate Michael Cohen during legal proceedings by filing a lawsuit against him, which was later dismissed.
The legal proceedings against Donald Trump and his associates, including Michael Cohen, are ongoing and complex. During a recent court session in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Leticia James, Cohen testified for several days, with breaks for hearings on contempt charges against Trump for violating a gag order and alleged witness intimidation. Cohen's representation, Dania Perry, highlighted that Trump had attempted to intimidate Cohen by filing a $500,000,000 lawsuit against him, which was later dismissed due to Trump's refusal to take a deposition. The legal disputes between the parties continue, with Cohen set to testify in an upcoming criminal case against Trump.
Trump's Intimidating Behavior Towards Judge and Law Clerk During Cohen Trial: Trump's actions towards the judge and her law clerk during the Cohen trial raised concerns of intimidation, including serving a subpoena the night before testimony, publicly criticizing them, violating a gag order, and storming out of the courtroom.
During a court case involving Michael Cohen, Donald Trump displayed behavior that could be perceived as intimidation towards the judge and the judge's law clerk. The night before Cohen was set to testify, Trump's lawyers served him with a subpoena, which could be seen as an attempt to intimidate. During the trial, Trump publicly criticized the judge and her law clerk, who he referred to as a "second judge" and a "partisan hack." Trump's team also violated a gag order by speaking about the judge's clerks. In response, the judge found Trump not credible and fined him $10,000. Trump's behavior extended beyond the courtroom, as he stormed out of the courtroom when he didn't agree with a ruling. During cross-examination, Trump's team asked improper questions, which Michael Cohen found impossible to answer with a simple yes or no. The team's behavior was seen as a performance, with them acting as if they had won the case after receiving ambiguous answers. Overall, Trump's actions towards the judge and her law clerk, as well as his behavior during the trial, raised concerns about intimidation.
Trump's Team Attempts to End Tax Fraud Trial Prematurely: Trump's team tried to end the tax fraud trial early by requesting a directed verdict, but the judge denied it. Trump, who believed in inflating asset values, stormed out of the courtroom after the denial.
During the Trump Organization's tax fraud trial, Donald Trump's legal team attempted to end the case prematurely by requesting a directed verdict, which is unusual and was denied by the judge. Trump, who was reportedly furious, stormed out of the courtroom and held an impromptu press conference claiming victory. The reason for this unexpected move was Trump's practice of arbitrarily assigning inflated values to his assets, which was testified about by Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg. This method of valuation, which involved inflating numbers without formally changing the records, was understood by Trump's team as a directive from the boss. Despite the controversy, the actual numbers don't matter much, as they were merely figments of Trump's imagination.
Confusion in court over inflated financial statements: Clear communication and context are crucial in legal proceedings to avoid misunderstandings and potential consequences.
During a court proceeding, Michael Cohen was accused of lying about inflating financial statements for Donald Trump, based on a single ambiguous statement he made during a deposition. However, when clarified on redirect examination, Cohen explained that he never received explicit instructions to inflate the numbers. The prosecution attempted to use this statement to request a directed verdict, but the judge denied it. The confusion arose due to conflicting statements made during different parts of the proceedings. Despite the lack of substantial evidence, the accusation led to Cohen's sudden departure from the witness stand and the receipt of a subpoena in a related criminal matter. Ultimately, the incident underscores the importance of clear communication and context in legal proceedings.
Trump's team serves intimidating subpoena to Cohen during hearing: Trump's team served a lengthy and burdensome subpoena to Cohen during his testimony, potentially missing an opportunity to assert attorney-client privilege.
During a court hearing, Donald Trump's team served a lengthy and burdensome subpoena to Michael Cohen on the eve of Cohen's testimony, which is seen as an attempt to intimidate him. Trump did not assert attorney-client privilege in this case, despite previously filing a lawsuit claiming Cohen violated it. The subpoena was unusual as Cohen also had counsel present in the courtroom. Although there are exceptions to attorney-client privilege, it is likely that Trump's team missed an opportunity to raise it during the hearing. The strategy behind this move remains unclear, but it may be an attempt to secure a second chance in the ongoing lawsuit against Cohen.
Testimony marked by lawyer interruptions: Defense attorney's disruptive behavior had little effect on witness Michael Cohen during congressional hearing
The testimony during the congressional hearing was marked by a lack of courtroom civility and decorum, with defense attorney Alina Haba frequently interrupting and editorialized during questioning. This behavior, which would typically result in a lawyer being removed from the courtroom, seemed to be for show and had little impact on the witness, Michael Cohen. Despite Haba's attempts to put Cohen on the defensive, he remained calm and composed throughout the hearing. The intense atmosphere of the courtroom, filled with various legal figures, added to the intrigue of the proceedings.
Trump's Unusual Behavior in Court Strains Credulity: Trump's disregard for a gag order and false statements during a trial, along with his lawyers' actions, went against legal norms and strained the court's credulity.
That the court's finding of Donald Trump not being credible while under oath during a trial is an unusual event. Trump's lawyers allowed him to make statements that violated a gag order, and the judge found that his statements were not truthful. This situation is remarkable because lawyers have a duty to control their clients and to uphold the truth in court. Trump's behavior, along with his lawyers' actions, strained credulity and went against the norms of the legal system. The comparison was made to Michael Cohen, who was once Trump's personal lawyer and was known for his loyalty, but even he couldn't control Trump's actions or the false statements made on his behalf. The court's response to these events highlights the importance of truth and adherence to legal procedures in the judicial process.
The influence of a powerful figure can inspire loyalty to the point of lying and breaking the law.: Powerful individuals can inspire intense loyalty, leading their followers to disregard the truth and even commit crimes in their support.
The power and influence of certain individuals, like Donald Trump, can lead a significant number of people to disregard the truth and even commit crimes in their support. Michael Cohen, a former attorney for Trump, described him as a cult leader or a mafia boss who inspired loyalty to the point of lying and breaking the law. Cohen himself served time in prison for lying to Congress on Trump's behalf. This phenomenon extends beyond Trump's inner circle, with many January 6th rioters and other attorneys also facing consequences for their actions. The consistency of Cohen's testimony, despite the intense scrutiny and criticism he faced, underscores the reality of this phenomenon. Cohen's experience also highlights the significant risks and consequences that come with challenging such figures, as evidenced by the lack of preparation or support he received from the attorney general during his testimony.
Attorney General's Office Did Not Object to Inappropriate Questions During Cohen's Testimony: Michael Cohen testified without objection from the attorney general's office despite potential risks to his privileges and 5th Amendment rights, highlighting the vulnerability of unrepresented witnesses.
During Michael Cohen's testimony in a civil case, the attorney general's office did not object to inappropriate questions that could have potentially implicated Cohen's privileges or 5th Amendment rights. Cohen had to object himself, as he was largely unrepresented. Although Cohen testified about asset valuation issues with an ongoing criminal investigation, he did not take the 5th Amendment during the testimony. Despite the risks involved, Cohen chose to testify truthfully. The lack of objections from the attorney general's office highlights the uncomfortable situation where the witness is left unprotected and vulnerable. The potential consequences for Cohen could be severe, especially if there is a change in political leadership, and there is a risk of vindictive prosecutions.
Michael Cohen's decision to testify instead of invoking the Fifth Amendment: Cohen's testimony allowed the public to hear firsthand accounts, demonstrated his cooperation with investigators, and potentially provided valuable information.
Significance of Michael Cohen's decision not to invoke the Fifth Amendment during his testimony in the attorney general case. Although he was subpoenaed and could have used his constitutional right to remain silent, Cohen chose to testify. This decision was noteworthy because it allowed the public to hear firsthand accounts about events related to the case. It also demonstrated Cohen's willingness to cooperate with investigators, potentially providing valuable information and contributing to the ongoing legal proceedings. Overall, Cohen's testimony underscores the importance of individuals' decisions during legal investigations and their potential impact on the course of justice.
