Anderson Cooper is such a right wing lunatic! Time to fire this guy from CNN.
“This time, Michael Cohen was cornered in what appeared to be a lie I think to many in the room and had to adjust suddenly his memory he had just testified to on Tuesday,”
“If I was a juror in this case watching that, I would think, ‘This guy’s making this up as he’s going along, or he’s making this particular story up,'” Cooper said. “I think it’s severely damaging to Michael Cohen’s testimony.”
The lie in questions was …
The lie in question came when Blanche looked into the call Cohen previously said was to Trump about setting up the Stormy Daniels payment arrangement and was approved by Trump. Blanche found that prior to that call, Cohen had been getting prank calls and texts from an alleged 14-year-old and had reached out to Keith Schiller asking who he could talk to about being harassed and Schiller told Cohen to call him. That’s the call Cohen originally stated on Tuesday was to Trump about the arrangement.
That could be enough to scupper the entire case. It was a nifty piece of work from the defence and Cohen’s readjustment looked questionable. Whether it’s enough on its own to deal the death blow to the prosecution’s case nobody knows , but it’s certainly something they are going to have to address come redirect on Monday.
I’m surprised by Cooper’s response to it as it was more theatre than a legit trap. Cohen is a known liar and has done so in consequential ways well outside of the scope of simply lying to advance Trump’s interests, and so this theatrical characterization might play well with the jury, and certainly did with AC. But it’s not an undeniable factual undercutting of him. It an artistic reading of the situation to call it a lie, was done so based on unverified assumptions and Cohen rejected the characterization, all why Blanche continued to just pound the table yelling “you lied”.
It is straight out of the court room axiom…“if the facts are in your favour pound the facts, if the law is in your favour pound the law. If neither then pound the desk.” It’s his job so no shade is meant, and it may have the intended impact. But it’s relevant that there are two lawyers on the jury who will probably be less impacted by it and you can imagine that having a baring on the jury deliberations. Still, Trump only needs 1…
Unless I have misunderstood this case to a large degree, I believe the case hangs on Cohen’s testimony as its his dealings with Trump, that would indicate if it can be proven that Trump knowingly wrote off the payment through his company accounting as a retainer rather than a more accurate “label” (whatever that would be). Its such a convoluted mess, its hard for me to completely understand all the charges. As far as I know:
Nobody is disputing the non-disclosure.
There is a dispute about the sex / no sex. Still cant understand the relevance if the non-disclosure has not been disputed.
Nobody is disputing an amount was written off through accounting.
There is a dispute as to the “label” it was written off under.
I don’t think there is any dispute about where the money came from (It seems to have come from both his personal, and a trust, at different times.
So to my view of this #4 is the most important, and this is what Cohen was needed for. As well as the Trump employees that authorized/never questioned the payments and “labelling” of the transaction on the books.
With the massive caveat that the jury is made of people, and people are fuckwits, we never really know what the case will hang on from the jury’s PoV.
However, in terms of the legal basis of the cases, no case like this would be based on the word of one witness, especially not one who has already perjured himself in court and in front on congress. Instead, the case is based on a paper trail that speaks for itself and demonstrates with no real contention both that the payments were accounted for fraudulently and that it was done to impact the election. It is not necessary to prove that Trump knew that either aspect was criminal, only that he participated in the scheme. The evidence already makes a very strong case to that, but without someone who can speak in support of your argument with first hand information you are left praying the jury understands the evidence the way you have presented it. They have made the bet that despite his untrustworthiness, Cohen can speak to Trump’s participation in the scheme in ways that will make the jury understand the totality of the evidence better. The jury know he is a liar already, but the key point is that his testimony is not standing on its own, but speaking to the evidence that has already been entered and explained the relevance of. This is not uncommon in criminal trials because criminals tend to associate with other criminals.
It’s also worth asking if you understand what lie Blanche thinks he caught Cohen in? I have been shocked by the response of some people in the media, because it just really wasnt the hit that some were reporting yesterday. It’s almost like they are responding to reports that Blanche was yelling “you lied” in the court room and treating it like it was some sort of A Few Good Men moment without even reading the transpcript.
The supposed lie - Cohen had previously identified a specific phone call to Trump’s head of security who then passed him to Trump as the time he told him the payment had been made. Yesterday, Blanche introduced evidence that the reason he made the call was to discuss a completely separate incident with the head of security. Cohen didn’t deny that but still insisted that was the call when he relayed the info to Trump. With no evidence to reject Cohen’s claim, Trump’s lawyer simply said he didn’t believe him as the call was too short to have had both conversations and started celebrating. Cohen again rejected that while Blanche again called him a liar. It was a bizarre exchange and I am surprised the judge didn’t intervene to strike the statement from the record.
With the caveat that I have only read the analysis. 1. The call is short. 2. Cohen left out the part that he called about the 13 year old kid, so he made it sound like the call was to Trump via the security, and about the payment.
It undoubtedly looks that way on the surface, however it is a very legitimate accounting entry as legal retainer. The question is, is it, and can it be proven that it isn’t? One thing about the accounting from my brilliant mind, is that if there is an any way a blatant fraudulent entry in a accounting ledger, then the IRS would be all over that, and they are relentless, and as far as I am aware, not heard at all by juries. If its not blatant, you will get maybe fined as well as pay the tax.
Blanche’s argument is a logical disconnection. There being another reason for the call being placed does not prove a second conversations was not had. This is surely apparent to anyone who has ever had a conversation with another person. It is a reasonable argument for a defense lawyer trying to raise doubt that the call was too short for two conversations, but it is deeply weird to argue there being a different reason for the call being placed meant it was a lie that he also discussed something else on the call.
But this is all an irrelevant aside to this case because these issues were not identified by the IRS. This case, like the vast majority of tax crimes that result in criminal charges stemmed an already existing criminal investigation (predicated on findings from the Muller investigation) that had sufficient cause to be able to subpeona tax records that upon investigation revealed criminal irregularities. But again, this is not just a tax fraud case, but a tax fraud case in furtherance of a second crime. As now been explained several times, without that second crime this likely wouldnt be a criminal case, certainly not the felony is it being prosecuted as. But that second element exists and is the basis of the case (why many outlets have rejected the framing as a “hush money case” and instead calling it a campaign finance case).
The vibe I got from it was not that the conversation with Trump didn’t happen, it was that Cohen was deceptive, which makes it look like a lie. I think this is what Cooper was originally getting at.
If on the other hand if he had said, yeah I called the security guy about some annoying kid, he said he was with Trump, so I asked to speak to him ……. much more believable even if it’s a complete lie.
It only takes one juror (the guy who gets his news from Truth Social perhaps) to decide that Cohen might be making it all up , despite the mountain of corroborating evidence and supporting witnesses. The defence clearly think they might have done enough in that one exchange to plant the seed. It’s down to the prosecution now to bring minds back to the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows Trump knew and was instrumental in the deception.
This is a completely different argument than the Trump lawyer made. His claim was explicitly that the call did not happen. He is not saying that he accepts the conversation happened but that Cohen was deceptive about the background details of the call because those details are inconsequential by themselves. The issue of the other details of the call is only being raised because it allows him to argue there was not enough time for the conversation with Trump to also happen. Your argument is akin to arguing that Cohen was caught in a lie because he didn’t disclose he was wearing mismatching socks while taking the call - without the non-disclosed background detail having direct relevance to whether the core claim (he informed trump of the payment) is true it is an irrelevant detail.
Seems to work most of the time, yet there are still innocent people convicted. Adding a simple majority will undoubtedly add more innocent incarcerations.
It is and that is the point. American justice is supposedly based on the idea it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than jail 1 innocent person. Of course, the justice system does not remotely act like that, but this is one of those features they can point to and pretend they are living that ideological philosophy.
But surely with things skewed the way they are, the significant likelihood is the guilty will go free?
Btw I would probably go for a 3/4 majority, so you need 9 of 12. It still weights it in a good direction with a high bar for overcoming the burden of proof, and then beyond that there is an appeals process if you don’t like the result.
It’s supposed to help rule out bias. If Trump had to get his jury from this thread, he would have already been hanged, drawn and quartered regardless of proof.
That he is insistent Trump is being unfairly targeted, constantly complains about it using inaccurate information and no matter how many times he is corrected on the unfactual basis of his assertions he never reconsiders his central idea and each time it happens it just reinforces that those people correcting him are the ones who are politically biased.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, I agree with that.
Experts on either side present the case, go over the evidence, and then 9/12 decide the outcome, with an appeals process to follow if you don’t like the result.
Way cleaner.
It would also significantly reduce miscarriages of justice, which are currently skewed in the direction of the guilty going free.
