First Question on Cross Examination of Michael Cohen: Are you an honest person?

[JoeB131]

My only question at this point is whether Merchan has the integrity to issue a directed verdict.

Nope, only a jury can pass down a guilty verdict on Trump's obvious guilt

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope, only a jury can pass down a guilty verdict on Trump's obvious guilt

The court has Cohen's tapes too:


Michael Cohen has now begun speaking about having recorded Trump directing him to pay David Pecker back in cash. As a reminder, the jury has heard this recording. It fits in nicely with Cohen’s narrative that he was often updating Trump on the progress of the Karen McDougal hush-money deal — on the recording, Cohen only has to mention Pecker’s name and it seems as if Trump knows that he’s referring to that deal.

Cohen claims that this was the only conversation with Trump that he ever taped, and that he did it so that Pecker could hear that Trump planned to pay him back, thus retaining Pecker’s loyalty.

Now, Cohen addresses the payment to Pecker, referring to the publisher as “our friend David.” We again hear Trump ask about financing and then advising Cohen to “pay in cash.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/13/nyregion/trump-trial-michael-cohen

Michael Cohen has almost finished describing the recording, beat by beat. He says that when he insisted that David Pecker be paid, he made reference to Pecker's dossier on Trump. And he says that while he said “financing,” he meant “funding,” meaning he was asking how Pecker would be repaid for silencing Karen McDougal's story. Cohen says that Trump suggested cash, as we’ve seen, but that Cohen rejected that suggestion.

 

[para bellum]

My only question at this point is whether Merchan has the integrity to issue a directed verdict.

He doesn't. He has already undermined the defense by not allowing their expert witness on election laws to testify as an expert.

I'm sure his jury instructions will be long on the things that don't have to be proved, and short on the things that do.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You can't be serious.

Put him under oath and he is going to be cellmates with old friends.

So, no.

You have no specific examples of lies by Trump that the prosecutor could use.

Answer Yes.
Trump Incompetent Attorney: You are?
Prosecutor: Objection asked and answered defense is badgering the witness
Judge: Sustained, move on.

Yeah, no. If Cohen says yes, to question about whether he is an honest person, he opens the floodgates of Michael Cohen lies that the defense can use to impeach his testimony.

Trump's idiot attorney has just established the witness' credibility.

It's like MAGATS have never watched an episode of Perry Mason.

View attachment 946282

Perry Mason?

I was wondering where you got a silly idea like that from.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The court has Cohen's tapes too:


Michael Cohen has now begun speaking about having recorded Trump directing him to pay David Pecker back in cash. As a reminder, the jury has heard this recording. It fits in nicely with Cohen’s narrative that he was often updating Trump on the progress of the Karen McDougal hush-money deal — on the recording, Cohen only has to mention Pecker’s name and it seems as if Trump knows that he’s referring to that deal.

Cohen claims that this was the only conversation with Trump that he ever taped, and that he did it so that Pecker could hear that Trump planned to pay him back, thus retaining Pecker’s loyalty.

Now, Cohen addresses the payment to Pecker, referring to the publisher as “our friend David.” We again hear Trump ask about financing and then advising Cohen to “pay in cash.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/13/nyregion/trump-trial-michael-cohen

Michael Cohen has almost finished describing the recording, beat by beat. He says that when he insisted that David Pecker be paid, he made reference to Pecker's dossier on Trump. And he says that while he said “financing,” he meant “funding,” meaning he was asking how Pecker would be repaid for silencing Karen McDougal's story. Cohen says that Trump suggested cash, as we’ve seen, but that Cohen rejected that suggestion.

And so what? Having a conversation with your attorney about paying for a nondisclosure agreement is not against the law.

For an attorney to record such a conversation is an almost unbelievable breach of attics, but since it is Cohen, no one should be surprised.

 

[BackAgain]

Easy answer...

"I have made mistakes in the past where I was not honest and forthcoming and I paid a steep price for those times. I have learned a hard lesson and strive to do better".

Which he has said before and then gone on to lie his ass off some more.

 

[Seymour Flops]

He doesn't. He has already undermined the defense by not allowing their expert witness on election laws to testify as an expert.

I'm sure his jury instructions will be long on the things that don't have to be proved, and short on the things that do.

That is what I keep thinking. That the judge is going to make jury instructions, his own Hail Mary pass to secure a conviction. Because so far, there’s no way the jury could convict.

Either that, or the judge will declare a mid trial right before the case goes to the jury so that it can just start over.

 

[BackAgain]

Mr. Cohen. Are you lying now OR are you lying now?

 

[Dadoalex]

So, no.

You have no specific examples of lies by Trump that the prosecutor could use.

Yeah, no. If Cohen says yes, to question about whether he is an honest person, he opens the floodgates of Michael Cohen lies that the defense can use to impeach his testimony.

Perry Mason?

I was wondering where you got a silly idea like that from.

Tell us all about your legal expertise?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So, no.

You have no specific examples of lies by Trump that the prosecutor could use.

Yeah, no. If Cohen says yes, to question about whether he is an honest person, he opens the floodgates of Michael Cohen lies that the defense can use to impeach his testimony.

Perry Mason?

I was wondering where you got a silly idea like that from.

If the prosecutors ever got Trump on the stand -- he'll hang himself.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Anyone know for sure whether today Michael Cohen took the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, again?

Honestly, I wouldn’t see the point. I picture the judge starting to tell Cohen to raise his right hand, and then saying “yeah, your witness,” or if he did ask him if if he swore tu tell the truth, Cohen saying “sure,” while arching his eyebrows.

I know that if Cohen had his left hand on the Bible and his right hand in the air to swear to tell the truth, I would not want to stand anywhere near that human lightning rod.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If the prosecutors ever got Trump on the stand -- he'll hang himself.

Donald Trump is way smarter than the group of DEI hires going after him.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The court has Cohen's tapes too:


Michael Cohen has now begun speaking about having recorded Trump directing him to pay David Pecker back in cash. As a reminder, the jury has heard this recording. It fits in nicely with Cohen’s narrative that he was often updating Trump on the progress of the Karen McDougal hush-money deal — on the recording, Cohen only has to mention Pecker’s name and it seems as if Trump knows that he’s referring to that deal.

So, what? Is it in dispute that Trump's lawyers negotiated an NDA with the porn performer?

Not illegal.

Cohen claims that this was the only conversation with Trump that he ever taped,

And you TOTALLY believe him, right?

and that he did it so that Pecker could hear that Trump planned to pay him back, thus retaining Pecker’s loyalty.

Lame excuse. No doubt Cohen recorded Trump every chance he got without getting caught, hoping someday to be able to use it for his own benefit.

Now, Cohen addresses the payment to Pecker, referring to the publisher as “our friend David.” We again hear Trump ask about financing and then advising Cohen to “pay in cash.”

I heard Trump as "Cash?"

But with an amateurishly recorded audio bite, it is difficult to tell. That's the kind of "evidence" the prosecution likes in this case.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/13/nyregion/trump-trial-michael-cohen

Michael Cohen has almost finished describing the recording, beat by beat. He says that when he insisted that David Pecker be paid, he made reference to Pecker's dossier on Trump. And he says that while he said “financing,” he meant “funding,”

He was probably thinking of how he could get Trump to help him repay the HELOC that he made long before he heard of Stormy Daniels, so he said "financing."

meaning he was asking how Pecker would be repaid for silencing Karen McDougal's story. Cohen says that Trump suggested cash, as we’ve seen, but that Cohen rejected that suggestion.

Again, you are lapping up every word that Cohen speaks, right?

 

[mudwhistle]

Cohen wil just reply…….I am a Lawyer