Writes Alan Dershowitz, in "I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me" (NY Post).
ADDED: Byron York has "The Trump trial suffers a nervous breakdown":
Having Costello testify was a last-minute decision by the Trump defense. He had knowledge of Cohen’s credibility, having been Cohen’s lawyer.... Costello testified that Cohen told him that Trump did not know about the nondisclosure agreement payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. “Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times,” Costello said....
That is important information, given that it goes to the heart of the case — that Trump allegedly, with intent to defraud, falsified records of the payments because he was also intending to commit some other crime that prosecutors have not yet specified. If Trump “knew nothing about those payments,” as Cohen said, according to Costello’s testimony, that would throw a big wrench in the prosecution’s theory of what happened.
Perhaps you have not heard about Costello’s testimony. If not, that was likely because everyone, including the press, got very excited about what happened later....
Go to the link for quotes from the transcript covering the material Dershowitz wrote about as an eyewitness.
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
Democrats continue their ignorance and destruction of the Bill of Rights.
'which it was not' is an opinion.
If his behavior on stand was a problem, Dersch should suggest what Merchan should have done instead.
His hand wave dismissal of the issues that occurred makes it clear this is nothing more than an attempt by the Trump team to skew public opinion.
This must be Merchan’s last case as presiding judge. Why else would he so thoroughly wreck his judicial integrity?
Coming soon to a court near you
This must be Merchan’s last case as presiding judge. Why else would he so thoroughly wreck his judicial integrity?
He’ll be living it up in St Tropez or Thailand or at his new dacha or wherever these corrupt old raisins end up.
I think the Dersh has finally figured out that the Left doesn’t care one whit about the Constitution. It is all about power. I see that with the Omaha Public Power District Board. By law, OPPD is supposed to supply low cost and reliable electricity. But OPPD has adopted a Net Zero Carbon policy that means way more unreliable and expensive solar and wind. I’ve told them they are lawless.
Mark said...
'which it was not' is an opinion.
"Mark is a moron with a bad case of TDS" is also an opinion.
I feel they know the best outcome is a hung jury. So the “defense” is all a performance to demonstrate “the rules don’t apply to me and they don’t apply to anyone like me.” Hence the group of ex-convicts at his trial the other day. It’s not for an audience of one. It’s an election appeal for the base. The problem is their trump-centric "defense" performance basically was a middle finger to the jury. Which is kind of the opposite of what you want to do if you want a juror to side with you.
The reporting was more about the contempt Costello showed than it was about the substance of the trial. Trump may be stupid about many things, but he’s not when it comes to appealing to his base. Showing the rules don’t apply while “proving” the judge is unfair and he’s a victim. The disrespect to the law is a campaign theme. It’s their main platform. With Trump being a victim of an unfair system not only absolves him of any conviction, it also gives his followers a reason to fight for him. He’s doing nothing to expand his base.
Merchan's Muff.
"That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense."
------
Is there anything about this case that has been constitutionally sound?
Raising one's eyebrows towards a judge in Don Juan Merchan's hometown of Bogota, Colombia will get a person shot. Merchan probably thought he was being kind.
My favorite line(s) from the trial: "Quit staring at me." "I'm not staring at you."
Althouse theme for the day: "Voters demand banana republic governance!"
Today's fascistic left is firmly owned by manipulative billionaires with the money to hand out bribes, and those fully dependent on gifts and government free rides. The ghost of FDR is very, very happy.
Everyone would be better off listening to The Dershow (Dershowitz’s podcast” regarding this day in court. It’s less than 30 minutes but his contempt of Merchan is front and center. And anyone at this point in time has not figured out that Merchan just wants a guilty verdict NOW, come hell or high water is a fool.
Merchan just wants the guilty verdict for the election. And gives a rat’s ass if this case is overturned on appeal. Which we all know will be in 2-3 years. (See Harvey Weinstein case).
This disgusts me but to Democrats it’s NBFD as long as they stay in power.
(And Mark, you are an idiot of major proportions-you donate about the rule of law you just hate Trump.)
Definition: Merchan, noun, a biased judge determined to achieve a guilty verdict no matter what the law and evidence might be.
Example: “My client is innocent but he had a real Merchan on the bench so now he’s looking at a max sentence.”
See also Quisling
If his behavior on stand was a problem, Dersch should suggest what Merchan should have done instead.
Actually Dershowitz did exactly as you asked. First, he said Costello’s behavior was not a problem. Second, he said Merchan should have a thicker skin. And third, Merchan should allow a question to be asked before ruling it out of order. He said even more about what Merchan should have done instead. Maybe you could try learning about a topic before forming an opinion.
When will constitutionalists realize they’ve been made enemies of the state and stop pretending the system is operating nominally?
Rich confusingly said..
So the “defense” is all a performance to demonstrate “the rules don’t apply to me..”
Rich? which rules are these? What crime is Trump being charged with? I mean, besides being Trump?
Seriously, help me out; i'm confused.. WHAT WAS THE CRIME ? please inform me
Mark said...'which it was not' is an opinion.
What's your evidence of that? Are we to merely assume that you are familiar with the case history and know that courts haven't taken a position on the acceptability of behavior of the sort Costello was engaging in?
I am sorry but all of the information in the Alan Dershowitz op-ed, and in this blog post, is a day late and a dollar short.
Neither Dershowitz, nor Byron York, addressed the wrapup of Robert Costello's disastrous testimony. Wherein the prosecution introduced emails by and between Costello, his law partners and Michael Cohen, wherein Costello confessed thay he was working in coordination with Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump.
I know of no better, more succinct, more watchable explanation of the net effect of Costello's testimony than this clip of Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. It is magnificent. Word-perfect.
Blogger Chuck said...
I am sorry but all of the information in the Alan Dershowitz op-ed, and in this blog post, is a day late and a dollar short.
Neither Dershowitz, nor Byron York, addressed the wrapup of Robert Costello's disastrous testimony. Wherein the prosecution introduced emails by and between Costello, his law partners and Michael Cohen, wherein Costello confessed thay he was working in coordination with Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump.
I know of no better, more succinct, more watchable explanation of the net effect of Costello's testimony than this clip of Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. It is magnificent. Word-perfect.
5/22/24, 7:43 AM
————
Is this the same Lawrence O’Donnell who defended Cohen’s theft of Trump funds? Like most cable TV hosts he is a hack.
Merchen has made a lot of errors but the most egregious is not force the prosecution to prove that Trump committed the underlying crime.
Chuck, so the crime is working in coordination with Trump? Didn’t Cohen claim to work in coordination with Trump? Costello purpose in the stand was to note he previously worked in coordination with Cohen. Is the crime a conspiracy to conspire with others? Is this another New York rule that if anyone works in coordination with someone, then that is wrong? It would explain Ergoron’s ruling,
Dersh says it was an outrage and the biased judge was grossly unfair to the Defense. Norm Eisen (CNN) and others say Costello was out of line, and a disaster for Trump. Similar to the tone of the coverage throughout the trial.
I have a day job, and would really like a brisk and fair analysis. When I listen to my baseball team on the radio, I don’t want the announcer and color guy raving that the umps blew every call favorable to the opponent or against my team. It insults my intelligence.
It’s so easy to go to a news outlet and find comforting, bias-confirming analysis, but that doesn’t interest me.
What to do ?
You said all that needed to be said with your confession, Chuckles:
“I am sorry”
Look at the difference between what Dersh wrote and what York wrote. Dersh is clear, sharp, and to the point. York (as always) is vague, tepid, and meandering. York is the "Moderate Conservative" which means he's always trying to hit soft and please two masters.
This judge has thin skin, probably a result of his overall incompetence. Jurors are able to pick up when a witness is trying too hard. Jurors also want witnesses to show respect for the court. These are factors that ultimately impact whether jurors believe a witness. Most judges would not react as Merchan did. They would let the chips fall as they may. If Costello was out of line, he was not doing Trump any favors.
On the other hand, jurors also know when the judge is off his rocker.
The idea is to behave as contemptuously as possible, and any reaction to that from the judge is evidence of “bias.” Once again, the domestic abuser’s playbook explains everything there is to know about Trump.
As for Blanche, I can’t improve on the words of George Conway: ‘I don’t know whether Todd Blanche is a crying little shit, but the fact that he began the cross-examination of the major witness in the most important trial of his life by talking about whether he called him a crying little shit is pretty strong evidence that he’s a crying little shit.’
I'm constantly amazed that anyone would think rude, disrespectful behavior toward the judge — as shown by Costello — is a good strategy. If I taught a course on how not to conduct a defense, the performance by Team Trump would make a great case study. Pro tip: Don’t open doors you shouldn’t, don’t hang your case on something the hard evidence dispute, and don’t disrespect the judge.
All this talk about Costello has successfully diverted attention from the corrupt judge preventing Trump from offering expert testimony that no violations of Federal Election Laws took place.
THAT is outrageous and will be a slam-dunk element in Trump's appeal, because Bragg's case hinges on violation of some (so far unidentified) breach of those laws.
Let's see how the jury instructions address that niggling detail.
Remember lo' those many years ago when you asked if judges should employ empathy and I and others said no?
This shit trial right here is all I need point to.
Raised eyebrows (which could simply be reflexive) to strike testimony? We'll never know because - tah dah - no video. Oh, yeah, no journalists either. Surprisingly, that testimony would have benefited who...?
Show me where he's empathizing with the man being tried on events unrelated to the... charge? ...
You eyeballing me boy? This is straight out of Cool Hand Luke.
The corrupt judge did not allow Trump to put on a defense and did not allow Trump attorneys to ask certain questions.
That is not a fair trial.
But it was never intended to be...
'Chuck, so the crime is working in coordination with Trump?'
Chuck is dumber than the judge's gavel so don't bother.
Even if you presented a perfect counterpoint he wouldn't understand it.
Like all liberals, his faculties are limited.
And being a democrat, he is a virulent racist.
Don't ever argue with a racist.
Rich:
I'm constantly amazed that anyone would think rude, disrespectful behavior toward the judge — as shown by Costello — is a good strategy. If I taught a course on how not to conduct a defense, the performance by Team Trump would make a great case study. Pro tip: Don’t open doors you shouldn’t, don’t hang your case on something the hard evidence dispute, and don’t disrespect the judge.
Totally agree sans "hard evidence". You'll have to be explicit there. I love watching court proceedings where that drama happens. But, their responses of striking testimony or tossing the case is reserved for extremely egregious displays of contempt, not bouncing brows.
Do you feel striking testimony, favorable to either side, is an appropriate response to a quite paltry contempt action (I mean, he didn't hurl slurs or such and we can't watch the expression connected to the raised brows can we?)?
Rich:
The idea is to behave as contemptuously as possible, and any reaction to that from the judge is evidence of “bias.”
The modus operandi of the victim crowd is to present anything - raised eyebrow, misgendering someone, etc) as contemptuous, "a stab to my heart" and, of course, some form of phobia.
Columbian Civics lesson?
There are so many reservable errors in this case, that it is not a matter if a conviction would survive appeal but how many errors would be cited to overturn a conviction. Marchin does not care about the law and he has zero interest in being fair. The man is utterly corrupt.
I am still trying to understand why anyone would think Costello's testimony was a "disaster." This case was never about the law or the facts. It is about getting a highly biased jury and a highly biased judge to engage in jury nullification to get a conviction on an absurd case that (a) should never have been brought to trial and (b) should have been summarily dismissed. At this point the actual charge is still vague, as the "crimes" are only felonies if they are done to perpetuate another crime, and the prosecution refuses to say what that other crime would be. The star witness is a convicted criminal who is a known liar, who literally committed provable perjury on the stand, who admitted to a worse crime than Trump is accused for which he will not be prosecuted, and has a financial motivation and a personal motivation to get Trump. No one would trust his testimony, and without his testimony there is no case. This is a case that they would use in a legal comedy as being so absurd that it was hilarious.
@ Oligonicella: I was wondering if Costello was actually trying to spark a mistrial. Forcing the judge to “display bias” is more subtle and looks forward to appeal. Since Judge Merchan saw through Trump’s goading him into jail time for witness and jury intimidation, I think in either case, he recognized antics and got in front of the problem.
Also, I think the reason they called Costello as a witness was because Trump wanted him on the stand after seeing his congressional testimony from the day before, and how well that testimony went over with a receptive audience of Republicans.
But another big mistake by the defense that has not been talked about much, was that it did not zero in on the fungible nature of the payments to Cohen and the fact that Trump, this so-called micromanager, did not know that Cohen was stealing $60k from him in those payments. If Cohen was able to do that, then who can say what else he was able to do without the go ahead from this supposed micromanager. It seems to me a legitimate defense that Trump is just too dumb and unfocussed to truly keep track of all the layers.
Perhaps "Trump is just too dumb and unfocused to truly keep track of all the layers" is an argument that the man running for President of the United States (or his handlers anyway) thought might work against him politically. I can certainly see the Lincoln Project, Dark Brandon and maybe Randy Rainbow having a field day with it.
Stalinism. Not only can it happen here. It is happening here.
Also, the thing about raising one's eyebrows is that it's usually an unconscious act. When something shocks you, you don't thoughtfully and intentionally raise your eyebrows.
Huff, puff, and offer testimony that is not to my liking, and it wiil be the last breath you take.
Rich that is a charactreristically excellent comment by you at 11:44.
It's the best, simplest, clearest, Occam's Razor explanation for the Costello trial appearance. By all accounts -- undisputed, including the Trump Team -- the Costello trial decision was last-minute. And why was it last-minute? What late-breaking development pushed a decision to call him as a witness? I think you nailed it. Trump (not his defense lawyers) seeing Costello on the Fox News Channel, playing up to an uncritical Committee of House Republicans. Trump liked what he saw. As we know his line, "I watch the shows."
Chuck said...
And why was it last-minute? What late-breaking development pushed a decision to call him as a witness?
Well, it is hard to mount a defense when the prosecution hasn't even defined the crime yet.
It appears that the Judge and the Prosecution are going to wait until the defense rests to define the crime and the jury instructions.
Achilles; here is an open-ended, non-leading and non-rhetorical question for you.
But first, let me stipulate that Trump doesn't need to prove anything at trial. Trump is presumed innocent. His lawyers need do nothing more than to show reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Trump doesn't have to testify. And there should be no presumption of guilt if he chooses not to testify. Trump's lawyers aren't required to put on any witnesses or admit any evidence, but they may do that if they wish to and if their submissions comply with evidence and procedural rules.
Having made that stipulation... And apart from any criminal proceedings... What is Trump's story? What is his version of the events? What does he say happened? These are not guilt/innocence questions. These are purely political campaign questions. What should an average voter understand about the facts that gave rise to this criminal case? What, in simple, clear, plain English?
(I'm already feeling regret at having typed this. I fear it won't end well. But it's a Wednesday; a non-jury trial day.)
Chuck, if you want Trump's side of the story, he paid Cohen legal fees. Which were classified as legal fees. For a completely legal arrangement. I'm not sure why you are having trouble processing this. It is the prosecution's job to prove that this is not the case, for which they only have the word of a witness who (a) literally perjured himself while testifying and (b) admitted to a far worse crime for which he will not be prosecuted.
Then we have the question of why the prosecution is bothering to pursue these charges, given that they are minor concerns that would in most cases be ignored as a waste of time, and in worse cases would be settled with a minor fine and an admonishment to not do it again. No one but Trump would get this treatment, and obviously this treatment is politically motivated.
Here's my question to you. For these "crimes" to be felonies requires that they be done in furtherance of another crime. What is the other crime? The prosecution refuses to reveal what this other crime is, and wants the judge to let the jury decide what the other crime is, such that each juror can literally decide on a different other crime, none of which the defendant has been convicted or even charged. This makes the defense of that part of the case literally impossible. Are you okay with that? Because if you are, there's nothing left to discuss.
Static Ping said...
Chuck, if you want Trump's side of the story, he paid Cohen legal fees. Which were classified as legal fees. For a completely legal arrangement.
We have the documentary evidence and testimony from Cohen; he states that the fees paid were primarily reimbursement for money that he advanced to Stormy Daniels. And that some phony legal invoices were submitted to the Trump Orgainization in coordination and conspiracy with Trump in order to conceal the nature of the payments. Cohen has testified that legal services weren't much involved. The internal documents, verified by Jeff MConney, confirm that. The internal documents show that the Trump accountants took the number that was paid by Cohen to Stormy Daniels, and essentially doubled it on the word of Cohen that it was needed to "gross up" the amount to fully (they thought) compensate Cohen. It all supports Cohen's testimony of what happened. The defense never put on any evidence of what legal services were provided. Trump didn't supply any evidence contradicting Cohen. A non-disclosure agreement might have been "completely legal." But even the agreement was clouded in fraudulent dressing. Complete with fake names. Never signed by Trump.
And we still don't know what your "completely legal" agreement was for. Was it to purchase Stormy Daniels' silence about a sexual encounter? Was it to satisfy an extortion attempt by Stormy Daniels, when no encounter had ever occurred? Why are you even talking about an oblique "completely legal agreement" if all that Cohen really did was to perform legal services which were properly booked all along? Was the "completely legal agreement" ever booked as such?
[I repeat here in closing; I am not arguing that Trump had a legal duty to put on a case. This is a discussion that cannot avoid the criminal trial evidence, but that is not my aim. I am asking for a simple, plain-English description of Trump's side of the story, apart from his legal case.]
"This makes the defense of that part of the case literally impossible."
This is what the left wants. Why else was his accuser in the recent "rape" case excused from having to say when the alleged crime occurred?
Chuck, I was going to discuss your points, but I do notice that you just decided to skip past the elephant in the room. This case is dependent on their being an overarching crime.
That overarching crime has not only not been established, it has not even been stated by the prosecution, and the prosecution has overtly declared that they do not even need to provide an overarching crime. Frankly, if that does not shake you to core, then there is nothing left to discuss. Being put on trial for a crime that you will not be notified is beyond the pale. Even the most corrupt judicial systems at least go through the motions to accuse the defendant of crimes, even if they are complete lies.
If you are okay with that, then there is nothing left to discuss. We do not have common ground to even try to understand each other. Dispensing with basic legal rights and fairness is not negotiable.
"If you are okay with that, then there is nothing left to discuss."
He'll be okay with that. It's Trump. Nothing else matters.
Chuck said...
Achilles; here is an open-ended, non-leading and non-rhetorical question for you.
But first, let me stipulate that Trump doesn't need to prove anything at trial. Trump is presumed innocent. His lawyers need do nothing more than to show reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Trump doesn't have to testify. And there should be no presumption of guilt if he chooses not to testify. Trump's lawyers aren't required to put on any witnesses or admit any evidence, but they may do that if they wish to and if their submissions comply with evidence and procedural rules.
Having made that stipulation... And apart from any criminal proceedings... What is Trump's story? What is his version of the events? What does he say happened? These are not guilt/innocence questions. These are purely political campaign questions. What should an average voter understand about the facts that gave rise to this criminal case? What, in simple, clear, plain English?
(I'm already feeling regret at having typed this. I fear it won't end well. But it's a Wednesday; a non-jury trial day.)
So basically you are just admitting that there is no actual crime that they are actually charging Trump with.
Thanks Chuck.
You make 3 new Trump voters every time you post on this site.
Blogger Chuck said...
And we still don't know what your "completely legal" agreement was for. Was it to purchase Stormy Daniels' silence about a sexual encounter? Was it to satisfy an extortion attempt by Stormy Daniels, when no encounter had ever occurred? Why are you even talking about an oblique "completely legal agreement" if all that Cohen really did was to perform legal services which were properly booked all along? Was the "completely legal agreement" ever booked as such?
[I repeat here in closing; I am not arguing that Trump had a legal duty to put on a case. This is a discussion that cannot avoid the criminal trial evidence, but that is not my aim. I am asking for a simple, plain-English description of Trump's side of the story, apart from his legal case.]
Trump has shown the NDA that Daniels signed. It couldn't be more obvious.
There is nothing illegal about what happened.
Even the FEC agrees Trump did nothing wrong.
Merchan let a convicted perjurer and admitted thief testify he thought it was a campaign finance violation. But Merchan wont let the FEC investigators/experts testify that they do not think Trump committed a crime.
For reasons.
And the previous NY DA decided not to charge Trump during the time these events were within the statute of limitations.
But Judge Merchan's family is making millions fundraising off this trial so I can see why he is acting like a corrupt piece of shit.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा