All posts tagged "michael cohen"

'It makes no sense': Trump's ex-lawyer baffled by former president's new pay-off scandal

Donald Trump has never before been seen as exhausted as he is right now, according to a man who once served as Trump's lawyer.

Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney and "fixer" who was a key figure in the criminal case that resulted in Trump being convicted in connection with a plan to influence the 2016 election by covering up "hush money" payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, appeared on MSNBC on Saturday in an interview that began with some audio issues.

Once the microphone problems were resolved, Cohen was asked by Rev. Al Sharpton, a longtime acquaintance of Trump and Cohen, about Trump cancelling events and appearing tired.

ALSO READ: The menstrual police are coming: Inside the GOP's plan for total control over women

"I can honestly say that neither you or I have ever seen an exhausted Donald Trump looking the way that he looks right now," Cohen said. "Pale, flustered, sweaty, completely disoriented."

He continued:

"The question that I would then turn around and pose: who wouldn't be when you have 34 criminal counts that have been levied against you, you have about 600 million in civil fines, you know that you are failing in this campaign, and that if you don't win this presidential election, that accountability is going to be had by you for the first time in your life?"

Cohen added, "He is physically and mentally exhausted."

Upon being asked about the criminal convictions and recent reports that Trump again attempted to silence Daniels in the run-up to the 2024 election, Cohen said, "I don't understand why they would even do this."

"Her book was widely read, people know exactly what took place between the two, she has not been quiet about that affair that they had, so what's the point to do it? Honestly, I have no idea. To me, it makes no sense at all," Cohen said, suggesting that someone could have "gone rogue" in an attempt to "curry favor" with Trump.

Watch below or click here.

'It's illegal': Trump's ex-lawyer blows whistle on former president 'stealing' from N.Y.

"Cheap" Donald Trump is breaking the law when he does certain campaign events from his New York Trump Tower, according to the ex-president's former lawyer.

Michael Cohen, who used to represent Trump in legal matters and also served as his so-called "fixer," recently dropped an allegation he says will "knock you right off your f------ chair." Specifically, Cohen said Trump is breaking the law with his campaign events at Trump Tower because he doesn't own the space.

"He charges a fee," Cohen said, adding that "the location charges a fee" to do events even at Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster. But he went even further when it comes to Trump Tower.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump exploits AP photo error for new $99 'Save America' book

"Every single time Trump does a rally at Trump tower in the atrium area, it's illegal. He doesn't have a permit to do it there," he claimed. "He does not own the public space inside Trump Tower."

"All of the public space, that's all owned by the people of New York," Cohen added. "But he charges the campaign."

Cohen went as far as to say this equates to his ex-boss "stealing money from the state of New York."

"Nobody grifts better than Donald Trump," Cohen added, referring to the ex-president as "Grifter-in-Chief."

Watch below or click here.

Michael Cohen asks Supreme Court to resurrect 'ripe' case against Trump over confinement

Donald Trump's former "fixer" is asking the Supreme Court to resurrect his First Amendment lawsuit against his old boss after a federal appeals court smacked down his attempt to seek compensation over retributive jailing.

Michael Cohen told news outlets Wednesday in a statement that, "No president should ever be permitted to weaponize the Department of Justice through a willing and complicit attorney general, to have a citizen unconstitutionally remanded to prison, in my case, solitary confinement, because that person refuses to waive that First Amendment constitutional right."

He called Trump and his administration "un-American," and said he believes his case is "ripe" for the Supreme Court to hear.

Cohen's filing with the court asks the nation's highest court — which includes three Trump-appointed justices — to take a second look at an appeals court's rejection of his request to hold former President Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and other Justice Department officials accountable for sending him back to jail over his refusal to refrain from writing a book critical of Trump.

Read also: 'Donald Trump has no problem creating World War 3 if it's in his name': Michael Cohen

“This is a case of first impression," Cohen said. "No president should ever be permitted to weaponize the Department of Justice through a willing and complicit attorney general to have a citizen unconstitutionally remanded to prison (solitary confinement) because they refused to waive their First Amendment right. It’s a case ripe for the SCOTUS.”

Cohen's request comes after the Supreme Court infamously laid down its presidential immunity ruling, which held that presidents have "absolute" immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts" in office.

Cohen is asking the justices to apply the Bivens precedent, though such claims are "virtually impossible" to obtain due to recent Supreme Court decisions, according to NBC News.

Cohen has said, according to The Independent he doesn't "believe that anyone could justify this blatant, unconstitutional act" as being one that could be granted immunity under the recent immunity ruling.

The filing comes after Cohen gave a stark warning Tuesday to Americans growing nervous about warning of revenge in a second term: it's no joke.

"When Donald Trump turns around and says that he's going to use SEAL Team Six as his own private force to incarcerate his political opponents, and the comment that people make is, 'You know Donald, he just talks stupid s---. He's not going to do anything,' the point of the unconstitutional remand of me is don't discount what he's telling you," said Cohen.

"He's already foreshadowing what he intends to do. And when you say, 'That's not possible. He won't do it. He can't do it.' He's already done it to me. It was a practice run."

Even 'MAGA morons' couldn't make heads or tails of Trump's Vegas rant: ex-lawyer

Former President Donald Trump's estranged one-time attorney and fixer Michael Cohen is amused by his former boss' bizarre rant at his latest rally in Las Vegas, where Trump launched into a confusing tangent about sharks while attacking President Joe Biden's electric vehicle initiatives.

"By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately," Trump said. "Do I get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark?"

Cohen laid on the mockery during his "Political Beatdown" podcast with Ben Meiselas.

"I'm shocked that he didn't say he would take off his diaper and throw it at the shark," said Cohen, a key witness in Trump's New York trial that ended last month with Trump convicted on 34 felony charges for falsification of business records. "You know, that's really thinking the right way! Nobody's asked him that."

ALSO READ: ‘That's the Kool-Aid’: Republicans triple down on Trump the morning after guilty verdict

"What a f--king idiot," he continued. "I mean, is there any other way to describe it? If that's not the stupidest rant that you've ever heard — even the folks that are there, camera left and camera right, are shaking their heads, and I'm talking about these MAGA morons with their mustaches, with their beards, their goatees, the whole nine — they all look exactly the same. It's like the f--king Deliverance. I mean, they're all sitting there shaking their heads like, what the hell is this guy talking about?"

"I mean, shouldn't he be talking about the economy, border control, then be talking about climate change, maybe, drilling," he continued. "You know, in Nevada, we should be talking about things like wages for servers and stuff like that, there was a big union issue that just came down there. They're not endorsing Trump, they're endorsing Biden. Shouldn't you be talking about things that apply to all of us? Not, whether or not you're going to get eaten by a shark, or electrocuted by a nonexistent boat that operates off of batteries because there's an electrical current? I mean, yeah, he's an idiot."

Trump brushed on the issue of wages during the speech as well, proposing off the cuff that waitstaff gratuities should be exempted from taxation — an idea the Culinary Union itself swiftly rejected as nonsense.

Watch the video below or at the link here.

What Donald Trump’s criminal trial reveals about a potential second Trump administration

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

There’s a tape that both the defense and the prosecution played in summations in former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial. In it, you can hear the chaos of Trump’s office at Trump Tower in September of 2016: Trump seems to be having multiple conversations almost simultaneously. He talks to an unidentified person on the phone. He discusses polls with Michael Cohen, his executive vice-president at the time. Trump and Cohen talk about a diversity initiative and stopping the media from unsealing the records of Trump’s first divorce. His executive assistant pops in with word of a call from a developer. Trump calls for a Coke.

And then, very clearly, you can hear Cohen saying, “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David, you know, so that — I’m going to do that right away. I’ve actually come up and I’ve spoken … I’ve spoken to Allen Weisselberg” — then the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer — “about how to set the whole thing up.”

Trump interrupts and says, “So, what do we got to pay for this, 150?” Then he says, “Cash?”

“No, no, no, no no,” Cohen says. “I got it.”

ALSO READ: Michael Cohen, Red Finch and the fateful moment Trump lost the jury

On the most literal level, the tape showed Trump discussing the logistics of paying off a woman who said she had an affair with him. This was key evidence for the jury’s ultimate finding that he had intended to alter the outcome of the 2016 election by making unlawful hush money payments.

When this tape was first made public, in 2018, it was hard to pin down exactly what it all meant. But as Trump’s seven-week trial proceeded, the broader meaning of the tape emerged in sharp relief: Everything is connected in Trump world, ethical borders are easily crossed and Trump is on top of every detail.

The verdict in the criminal trial provided answers to a narrow series of questions, not least of which was whether a presidential candidate had used illicit means to prevent voters from learning about a payoff to conceal a sexual encounter. (Trump has vowed to appeal.) But the trial also unveiled a broad array of evidence that went far beyond the charges. It revealed a lot about how Trump went about running his company and the presidency — and provided hints of how that might play out in a second Trump administration.

For most of Trump’s presidential term, I co-hosted the ProPublica/WNYC podcast “Trump, Inc.,” whose mission was to delve into the conflicts of interest between Trump’s business and his presidency. Because there was so much that journalists didn’t — and couldn’t — understand about a privately held company that clung tightly to its secrets, “Trump, Inc.” billed itself as “an open investigation.” We were candid about what we did and did not know because we lived in a world of doubt.

“Trump, Inc.” uncovered a lot, including unearthing Cohen’s dubious connections in 2018 and outlining how his role as Trump’s lawyer (then still intact) created a cloak of legal privilege that hid their interactions.

But we saw just tiny glimpses of the documents that have now been revealed in their entirety in the criminal trial; we had no access to the many Trump employees, current and former, who have now described, under oath, the inner workings of the Trump Organization.

That testimony confirmed what that tape seemed to show: that Trump pays close, close attention to all his business affairs, and always has. This, in turn, suggests that the mixing of Trump’s presidency and business that “Trump, Inc.” and others documented occurred under that same watchful eye. And if voters elect Trump a second time — this time knowing that he was convicted of a crime, one where key acts were committed in the Oval Office, on top of his two impeachments — Trump can conclude that America’s voters have blessed his way of doing business. There’s every reason to believe his conflicts of interest will only be more open and more unapologetic.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump employees testified to his intense level of control in three trials against Trump or his company over the past two years. These were among five trials since 2022, each of which I covered in person, including the criminal trial of his company for tax fraud, two defamation suits brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll and the New York attorney general’s civil fraud trial. Each trial ended badly for Trump or his company (and each is being appealed).

ALSO READ: 8 ways convicted felon Donald Trump doesn't become president

Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York offered one sharp revelation after the next. The disclosures came not just from the talked-about witnesses, such as former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, Stormy Daniels and Cohen himself, but also from Trump’s former comptroller, his executive assistant and the aide who sat closest to the Oval Office. Some of these individuals, including a junior bookkeeper for the Trump Organization and the head of the company’s accounts payable department, work in Trump Tower to this day.

The picture that emerges from their testimony is of a boss — “The Boss” is what they nearly uniformly call him — who manages the tiniest of details but leaves the faintest of traces of all that management. Up until the throes of the 2016 campaign, Trump had to approve every payment over $2,500, an extraordinarily tiny sum for a mogul with assets around the globe. (For the duration of the campaign, until he became president, that amount inched up, to $10,000.) Trump would reject checks he didn’t want to pay and send them back to his underlings, with the word “VOID” scrawled on them in Sharpie.

Trump watched every expense in this way, his comptroller Jeff McConney testified. Trump once told him, early in his time at the company, “You’re fired,” because McConney hadn’t made an effort to reduce Trump’s bills before presenting Trump with payment documents. “It was a teaching moment,” McConney said on the stand. This close attention and tight-fistedness extended company wide: When it came to Trump University, Cohen testified, it was part of his job to offer a vendor 20% of what they were owed, or to pay them nothing at all.

Trump brought this ethos to the White House, where, as his lawyers liked to point out, he was the “leader of the free world.” He took time to write “PAY” on a $6,974 invoice sent by Trump Organization executive assistant Rhona Graff for an annual membership and “food minimum” at the Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, New York.

ALSO READ: How Donald Trump could run for president — and lead the nation — from prison

Trump, of course, handed over control of the Trump Organization, including the oversight of its payments, to his older sons and Weisselberg at the outset of his administration. But he never gave up ownership of his company. He always made money from it, and does to this day.

And Trump, while president, went to extraordinary lengths to keep control of his “personal” checking account. That account actually belonged to a Trump Organization business entity, which underscored the lack of separation between Trump and the company he had ostensibly separated himself from. Trump’s personal checks were approved by Weisselberg; generated by Deborah Tarasoff, the head of Trump’s accounts payable department; stapled to the approved invoice; and sent via FedEx by Trump’s junior bookkeeper, Rebecca Manochio, to the Washington home of Trump’s bodyguard-turned-White House aide, Keith Schiller, who would bring them over for Trump to sign. That’s how the checks that Trump signed to Cohen made their way to the Oval Office.

“Checks came in a FedEx envelope” that Schiller delivered, testified Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s director of Oval Office operations. “I opened the envelope. And inside was a manila folder with a stack of checks. And I brought the manila folder in to the president for him to sign.”

ALSO READ: 'Most powerful thing': Witness details Trump's last moments before 'shocking' verdict

Money wasn’t the only thing Trump paid close attention to. He wrote all of his social media posts, save for a few written by an aide, Dan Scavino. Sometimes, Trump would dictate tweets to Westerhout. She would type them up, print them out and show them to Trump so the president of the United States could take time to scrutinize, and adjust, the punctuation. “He liked to use the Oxford comma,” Westerhout testified.

Trump did not send emails or text messages. This aversion has long been known, but the trial testimony laid out a whole series of ways in which Trump communicated without leaving precise documentation.

He was on the phone beginning at 6 in the morning and “late into the night after I went to bed, so I always felt guilty about that,” Westerhout testified. He’d often use Schiller’s cellphone to make calls, and employees would use that number to reach Trump. There were no Trump memos, no notepads, no Post-it notes, just an occasional Sharpie scrawl. And largely, except for Cohen’s, no testimony that what these employees did, they did “at the direction of” and “for the benefit of” Donald Trump. (This was an essential part of the judge’s charge to the jury: that Trump “personally, or by acting in concert with another person or persons, made or caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”)

This is the backdrop for the conflicts “Trump, Inc.” and other news media covered while Trump was president. To recap some of them (at a moment when polls show many Americans have forgotten much of what transpired during his administration): Trump’s hotel in Washington became a must stop-by for foreign officials, earning his company millions. He caused the U.S. Treasury to spend more than $1 million to house Secret Service agents in rooms with top-of-the-market rates at Mar-a-Lago and had the government pick up the tab for $1,005.60 in cocktails apparently enjoyed by administration officials and friends at his resort’s bar.

During Trump’s presidency, the response to questions about all this went something like this: As a global businessman, he or his allies would say, how could he possibly pay attention to whether the presidential seal was used on his golf courses? Or whether his son, Don Jr., was trading on the name “Donald Trump” to sell condos in India. Or whether businesspeople with foreign ties were trying to make a buck, or millions, from his presidency?

Indeed, this was part of Trump’s defense in the criminal trial, and in the civil fraud trial at which Trump was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to New York state for what a judge found was a yearslong practice of lying about the value of his assets. When he testified at that civil trial, Trump distanced himself from the fraud: “All I did was authorize and tell people to give whatever is necessary for the accountants to do the statements,” he said. And the false statements of financial condition? “I would look at them, I would see them and maybe on some occasions, I would have some suggestions.”

As is his right, Trump chose not to testify at his criminal trial, but his lawyer Todd Blanche argued on his behalf that Trump “had nothing to do, had nothing to do with the invoice, with the check being generated, or with the entry on the ledger” and that he was so busy being president he maybe didn’t even look at the checks he signed. “Sometimes he would sign checks even when he was meeting with people, while he was on the phone, and even without reviewing them,” Blanche said during closing arguments.

The jury did not buy that defense.

Trump is currently leading in the polls. It’s entirely possible he will be elected president. Yet he’s continuing to aggressively pursue business deals in countries that will have a long list of issues on which they will be seeking U.S. support.

The Trump Organization entered a full-on partnership with LIV Golf, an entity majority-owned by the government of Saudi Arabia, for tournaments at his golf courses. And last year, a New York Times reporter and photographer visited what the reporter called a “multibillion-dollar project backed by Oman’s oil-rich government that has an unusual partner: former President Donald J. Trump.” The project was launched and is being built while Trump is the front-runner for a second presidency. But neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign tried to defend or separate the project from the candidate who, while not running the company, still makes money from it.

“It’s like the Hamptons of the Middle East,” Eric Trump, who now runs the Trump Organization, told the Times. The paper wrote: “Oman, in fact, is nothing like the Hamptons. It is a Muslim nation and absolute monarchy, ruled by a sultan, who plays a sensitive role in the Middle East: Oman maintains close ties with Saudi Arabia and its allies, but also with Iran, with which it has considerable trade.”

It isn’t just the foreign deals. In April, right around the time Trump was about to be criminally tried in New York, he offered oil executives gathered at Mar-a-Lago “a deal,” the Washington Post reported. The publication summarized his message as: “You all are wealthy enough that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House.” In exchange, the Post said, Trump promised to reverse President Joe Biden’s initiatives to slow climate change, vowing to roll back some of them “on Day 1.”

And, as has been widely reported, with Truth Social going public, Trump has set up what Vox called “a perfect avenue for potential corruption.” As Vox noted, it’s “a way for Trump’s supporters to personally offer him financial support at a time when he desperately needs it.” By propping up the share price of the stock of the cash-hemorrhaging social media company, shareholders have potentially put billions of dollars in Donald Trump’s pocket.

It’s clear that Trump plays favorites and rewards loyalty; nearly eight years after he was inaugurated in 2017, it’s hard to imagine that any savvy businessperson or foreign leader fails to recognize this.

Certainly, those who were once in Trump’s orbit, if only briefly, testified to the dark side of that equation. Both Cohen and Daniels described the torrent of retribution they’ve experienced. Trump is unapologetic about his quest for vengeance. As he put it in one social media post last summer, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME I’M COMING AFTER YOU.”

Merely having been once employed by Trump seems to have taken a toll, on even relatively minor figures. In the civil fraud trial, Trump’s former comptroller, McConney, started weeping when he was asked why he no longer worked at the Trump Organization. He said he could no longer “deal with” the legal scrutiny he’d suffered. In the criminal trial, both former communications director Hope Hicks and Westerhout burst into tears on the stand, reflecting on their work history with Trump. Both said they remained loyal, but both had been banished from Trump’s graces.

And as for Weisselberg, he was not called to testify in this trial. His previous testimony in the trial of Trump’s company resulted in felony convictions on 17 counts and a five-month jail sentence. He is now serving a second jail sentence, in Rikers Island, for committing perjury in Trump’s civil fraud trial.

In the courthouse, Trump spent long stretches of time in an uncomfortable room with the shades always drawn, the fluorescent lighting unforgiving. He was required to listen to weeks of unflattering testimony, including, several times, to his own voice on that tape Cohen made of him, utterly cognizant of the tawdry deal he was striking. Saying, “So, what do we got to pay for this, 150?” After all the testimony in his criminal trial, this no longer seems like a random moment. It sounds like who Trump is: his attention to detail, his willingness to subvert the rules, the way he wields money to enhance his power, and vice versa, and is utterly unashamed.

The public knows all this now. In a second Trump presidency, it’s exactly what we’d get. Except this time, it will be all out before us, not in a secretly recorded tape.

Michael Cohen, Red Finch and the fateful moment Trump lost the jury

I have an unusually high win record with jury trials, partly because I’m chubby and matronly, traits jurors seem to find trustworthy. When smart things come out of my pudgy mouth, it’s a novelty to them, like a stuffed animal come to life, and what juror doesn’t want a warm cuddly friend offering life advice?

About 15 years ago, I tried an injury case before a jury in Chicago. This was before Ozempic; I was even fatter. The plaintiff, my client, was walking her dog on a jogging path when she was hit smack in the eye by a golf ball. The ball had sliced 90 degrees right off the first tee from the adjacent public golf course.

It wasn’t my client’s fault, it wasn’t the golfer’s fault. It was management’s fault, because golf course employees saw so many first tees repeatedly slice right toward the jogging path, they took bets on which ones would hit people. From a damages perspective, it would have cost less for management to erect a net barrier than my client paid in medical bills for her eye, and I suited up in the morning seeing dollar signs.

ALSO READ: How Donald Trump could run for president — and lead the nation — from prison

The trial was going well, I knew jurors were sympathetic. Plaintiff’s injury was permanent: the muscle controlling her iris (pupillary sphincter, you’re welcome) could no longer constrict in response to sunlight or other light, affecting her depth perception. She was credible — she neither overstated nor understated how it felt to rely on a cane to step off a curb — until defense counsel asked her about wearing a self-adjusting contact lens. (It seems there are contact lenses that automatically adjust to differing light. Technology, go figure.)

My client said yes, yes she could wear one of those lenses. But then she hesitated. She reconsidered. She got snarky. She appended her “yes” with, “I could, but why should I have to, I’m not the one who caused this, am I?”

I wanted to kick her. She had had the jury in her palm, then she flicked them away, haughtily. She should have conceded that yes, there were adjustments she’d be willing to make. Yes, she would learn to live with this inconvenience, but she’d do it. She’d adjust. Accidents happen, she was lucky she still had her eye, too bad there wasn’t a net to protect pedestrians.

ALSO READ: Justice delayed is not always justice denied

Instead, she showed defiance. And aggression. If jurors don’t like defiance, they like aggression even less.

With that tone, the jurors shifted. I felt their collective demeanor realign. That snark — that tiny entitled bit of victimhood — caused jurors to look mostly down when I re-directed her. They shifted their eye contact from me to the defense counsel, who slyly sneered my way in recognition of my misfortune.

I could have transmogrified into a talking teddy bear in that moment and it wouldn’t have mattered. Most trial lawyers have experienced this dreaded transition among jurors at some point in their careers: That moment when they know their client has either offended the jury or lost their sympathies, and there’s really no effective way to rehabilitate them.

Red Finch jury shift

For me, during the Trump trial — which I considered more an election fraud case than anything — that shift moment came when Michael Cohen was asked about his dealings with Red Finch, a tech firm.

Defense counsel asked Cohen about stealing from Trump payments intended for Red Finch. The goal: to show jurors that Cohen could not be trusted.

Cohen had admittedly lied in Trump’s service, repeatedly, so that made him a liar, and how could jurors trust a liar to tell the truth? Now Cohen was also admitting to stealing — he paid Red Finch only $20,000 of Trump’s $50,000 payment and pocketed the $30,000. That made him a thief as well as a liar, and wasn’t he really just out to extort President Trump all along?

“You stole it from the Trump Organization?” Trump lawyer Todd Blanche asked about the $30,000, to which Cohen replied, essentially, “yes.”

On redirect, winding up for the pitch — prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Cohen: What, exactly, was the purpose of Red Finch, anyway?

Cohen then explained that Red Finch was an online tech company Trump hired to artificially boost Trump’s ranking in an online opinion poll.

The opinion poll wasn’t even marginally important — it was a poll soliciting public opinion about “history’s most notable business leaders.” Trump owed Red Finch the $50,000 fee for fraudulently skewing the results of the poll in his favor. When Cohen told jurors about the arrangement, the curtain was pulled back to reveal a green haze of sleaze.

Trump paying Red Finch $50,000 to lie for him, to present pathetically fraudulent proof that people liked Trump more than they really did, was a business decision no amount of cross examination could wash off.

When the truth about Red Finch came out, there was nothing defense lawyers could do to fix it. Here was Trump, a man so steeped in fraud, so accustomed to lying to the public, that he was paying a tech firm to skew the results of a largely irrelevant opinion poll on his behalf. Having opened the door, defense counsel couldn’t move to strike it from the record, and even if they had, the green sleaze oozing out from under Trump couldn’t be unseen.

I remembered jurors’ faces when my golf ball client said she shouldn’t have to wear a corrective lens. No doubt Trump’s team began to see the same faces.

It was an examination gamble that backfired. Cohen shouldn’t have kept the $30,000, but jurors forgot about Cohen’s deceit when Trump’s deceit upstaged it.

Worse for Todd Blanche, Trump paying Red Finch to fraudulently manipulate public opinion tracked perfectly with Trump paying Cohen, Daniels and the National Enquirer to fraudulently influence the 2016 election.

Whether Trump meant to lie to the Federal Election Commission or not (yes, he meant to), I don’t think there’s any fact, evidence or argument that could have dislodged this proof from jurors’ minds.

In the end, the jury gave Trump 34 reasons to regret his choices.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Justice delayed is not always justice denied

As the 12 New Yorkers began deliberating Wednesday and Donald Trump had to stick around the courthouse with nothing to do but wait, he erupted before news cameras and on social media:

"It was weaponization”

“Mother Teresa could not beat these charges”

"KANGAROO COURT"

"I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CHARGES ARE IN THIS RIGGED CASE"

"Sham Trial”

“Very Dangerous Day for America"

By the end of Thursday afternoon, the jury had found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a bid to conceal from the voting public an affair with a former porn actress. With or without the assistance of Trump, the aftermath of the first trial of an American president will continue to be litigated in the court of public opinion well beyond the November presidential election — one that Trump may very well win.

Some would wrongly conclude, because Trump “has finally been subjected to the rule of law,” that the systems of justice are working with equal protection for all. And that no person, not even a former president of the United States, is “above the law.” Although that remains to be seen, as Trump may still escape from the rule of law with respect to his failed coup d’état on Jan. 6, 2021, and for having stolen classified documents on his way out of the White House a couple of weeks later.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump has unclaimed property and abandoned money in at least 16 states

Regardless of the unanimous verdict, this trial is not over. According to a recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll, “45 percent of Americans overall say these investigations are unfair and designed to obstruct his 2024 presidential campaign.”

Trump cultists believe that our systems of justice — civil and criminal – have been so corrupted and weaponized by the Biden crime family, radical leftists and global elites that they will still prefer an antidemocratic-authoritarian dictator and convicted felon as their head of state.

Before Trump became president in 2017, and over the course of three decades, he was arguably the greatest litigant of all time. Certainly, Trump was among the most litigious people in U.S. history. Whether he is the plaintiff or the defendant, Trump uses the law as a means of bullying and punishing his adversaries regardless of who they are.

Between 1986 and 2016, Trump was involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits according to James Zirin, author of The Plaintiff in Chief. In about 60 percent of these personal and business clashes, Trump was busy using the law to sue an array of individuals and entities. His defendants included personal assistants, celebrities, mental patients, prisoners, attorneys, businesspeople, family members, unions, governments and the media.

ALSO READ: 19 fabulously worthless things Trump will give you for your money

Trump sued for fraud, for breach of trust, for breach of contract, for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, for government favoritism, for libel, and for misappropriation — pretty much for all of the illegal things that Trump specializes in.

Trump also sues for all kinds of reasons: for sport, to achieve a sense of control, to make a point, and as a means of destroying or silencing anyone who has crossed him.

As a defendant, Trump has been sued for racial and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, fraud, breaches of trust, money laundering, defamation, stiffing creditors, defrauding students, defaulting on loans and misusing his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests.

Trump’s win-loss record is an impressive one, winning 451 times and losing only 38 times. In some 500 cases, judges have dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Trump; hundreds of other cases ended with the available public records unclear about the resolution.

Whether as plaintiff or defendant, what is important to underscore is that neither facts nor laws matter much to Trump, despite his laughable claim that he will “never lie.” As Zirin has written:

Whether he was entitled to the benefit of the law, or
whether he could support his positions with evidence, or
whether his claims stated a cause or action, or whether
he was really damaged was irrelevant to Donald Trump.
What was important was to use the lawsuit to attract
attention, to exert economic pressure, and to prove he
was the kid on the block not to be messed with. And his
adversaries largely gave way during his rise to celebrity
and power.

Once he became president, Trump began weaponizing the Department of Justice against his enemies and on behalf of his criminal allies. After the GOP took control of the House in 2023, Trump’s weaponizing of justice continued from the House controlled subcommittees.

Meanwhile, as Trump’s criminality escalated after the 2020 election, there was still an unwillingness or reluctance by law enforcement to go after him with its full authority and celerity.

Throughout Trump’s professional career, he has always been at war with legal standards and normative rules that he regards as made to be broken or avoided at all costs. Besides, the only people who abide by the rules are the suckers and losers — unlike winners and smart people who team up with scoundrels and mobsters to accomplish their objectives.

ALSO READ: Revealed: Lawmaker who gave J6ers a Capitol tour targets ex-Capitol Police intel head

Moreover, Trump’s lifetime of adjudication is found in a lengthy background of litigation accompanied by a pathological pattern of lying in which Trump’s particular style of intimidation evolved and morphed into one courtroom episodic drama after another — somewhat like his reality TV show, The Celebrity Apprentice.

Unfortunately, because the Manhattan trial for conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 presidential election was not televised, the majority of Americans were not paying much, if any, attention to the day-by-day proceedings.

Speaking of lies, pathological or otherwise, I found it both rich and amusing when Todd Blanche during his summation for the defense dubbed Michael Cohen a G.L.O.A.T., or the “greatest liar of all time.” After all, his client is in a league of his own in this category with false or misleading claims during his four years in office totaling 30, 573, according to the Washington Post.

It should not have surprised anybody familiar with Trump’s legal history that when he became president that “he would seek to weaponize the justice system, use his power to bend the law, attack his enemies and critics, and claim victory when there was none” as Zirin, also a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has written.

For example, the former president used his time in the White House to stave off the prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. (D). Vance’s successor, Alvin Bragg, ultimately did the job.

Trump did the same with New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) until such time as the Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg — but not CEO Trump — were arraigned and later convicted on multiple criminal charges alleging a 15-year tax scheme that was still in progress as of June 30, 2021.

Straight out of the Roy Cohn-Trump playbook, the Trump Organization released one of its classic assaults on the prosecutors rather than an affirmative defense of the indicted CFO or itself. As quoted by David Frum in The Atlantic:

Allen Weisselberg is a loving and devoted husband,
father and grandfather who has worked for the Trump
Organization for 48 years. He is now being used by
the Manhattan District Attorney as a pawn in a scorched
earth attempt to harm the former President. The District
Attorney is bringing a case involving employee benefits
that neither the IRS nor any other District Attorney would
ever think of bringing. This is not justice; this is politics.

Trump’s remarks regarding this criminal prosecution of his CFO and company like his four criminal prosecutions are always about attacking the prosecutors or the judges as being part of a “deep state,” the “radical left” and for being “rude, nasty, and totally biased.”

With the usual refrain, Trump is always telling us how he is being persecuted and victimized. He endlessly talks of these cases representing the ultimate witch hunt or “crime of the century.”

On Thursday, Trump declared May 30 the “darkest day in American history” — apparently forgetting the day in 1941 that the Empire of Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the day terrorists attacked New York City and Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11, 2001. He certainly forgot about a certain day in January 2021, when his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in his name while Trump watched from the White House.

Trump fundraising message A fundraising message from Donald Trump's presidential campaign following a jury returning a guilty verdict May 30, 2024, on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal an affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels. (Trump campaign)

Always fearing that one of his loyal employees like Cohen may eventually flip on him, Trump routinely underscores how the prosecutors are “in search of a crime” and that they “will do anything to frighten people into making up the stories or lies that they want.”

ALSO READ: Political polls are way better than you think. Here’s how to improve them more.

Of course, this is simply a part of Trump’s preparation or MO for civil or criminal litigations should they come to that. After all, he and his legal team know that rarely are the laws or the facts on their side. If these were, then Trump and his lawyers know full well that he — a former president of the United States — would never have been charged in the first place.

In most instances, therefore, Trump is always hoping that neither the laws nor the facts will matter as much as the political diversions that he and his team will be attempting to raise both inside and outside the courtroom for the benefit of at least one member of the jury.

Once again, as Frum in his Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy (2020) had articulated when the former president was still in office: “Trump worked all of his life on the theory that law can be subordinated to political favors and political pressures. That theory has carried him this far — and it’s pretty far, all things considered.”

It is indeed, even better than the most cynical politicians could have ever imagined.

Trump as president — and now as former president seeking to regain his lost office — has continued with his theory and practice of weaponizing the law. The convicted felon now also has the political assistance of a Trumpian majority on the Supreme Court as well as a Trump appointed federal judge for the Southern District of Florida slowly walking her adjudication. Ergo, both the January 6 and the classified documents trials that could have been over by now have yet to begin. And most likely they will not occur before 2025.

From the perspective of “justice delayed is justice denied,” it took eight years for his first criminal conviction to happen. With respect to his three other criminal indictments, it will have been at least four years and counting.

But Thursday’s ruling by a jury of Trump’s peers is proof that Trump, for all his money and influence and power, can’t run forever.

Gregg Barak is an emeritus professor of criminology and criminal justice at Eastern Michigan University and the author of several books on the crimes of the powerful, including Criminology on Trump (2022) and its 2024 sequel, Indicting the 45th President: Boss Trump, the GOP, and What We Can Do About the Threat to American Democracy.

Trump DOJ's sentencing of Michael Cohen could come back to haunt ex-president: expert

The Justice Department's targeting of Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has long been debated, as the so-called "fixer" maintains that all of his actions were in service to someone else who was not sent to federal prison for the crimes.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann walked through the things in Trump's past that will impact his sentencing.

"It will be quite the sort of listing of all of the factors that make this crime and make this defendant serious," he continued. Among those things is the "precedent." That includes what kind of sentencing has been done in other cases that can be compared to Trump's. The one who is closest to Trump, however, is Michael Cohen.

Read Also: Michael Cohen calls out Republicans: 'The real weaponization' from the DOJ came from Bill Barr

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018. In the years since, he's requested all government documents in which staff discussed his case to uncover what was happening behind the scenes, purportedly to target him on behalf of Trump. Cohen's most recent book details how he believes Trump used the DOJ against him to try and silence him, and the crusade for documents is to prove it definitively.

Even under Attorney General Merrick Garland, the DOJ refused to cooperate until Cohen won his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. However, Cohen told Raw Story earlier this year that none of the documents had been sent. It has been over a year.

Weissmann explained that the Trump DOJ's actions will now come back to haunt Trump.

Speaking to MSNBC Friday, he said that based on what they watched in Judge Juan Merchan's courtroom they can anticipate what he'll be thinking about in calculating a sentence.

There has already been a person who participated in the conspiracy who has gone to prison for this and served three years, he pointed out.

"And that person, which is Michael Cohen, pled guilty and cooperated," he explained. "Those things give you a lesser sentence. I think when you think about that, and is he being treated comparably? I think the Michael Cohen situation is going to weigh heavily, and it will also be something that there will be increased attention because the political side of this will see two very different submissions."

Weissmann said that comparing Cohen to Trump is going to be difficult to explain to the public if Trump gets a lesser sentence than the man who cooperated with prosecutors.

"How do you explain to the public why somebody who is more culpable, far more culpable for whom the crime was done and solicited all sorts of people?" he asked. "How do you explain why the leader doesn't go to jail? And then, let's say, would you take the same position? Let's assume the January 6th case went to trial, and he was found guilty of that, and hundreds of people are in jail; does he not go to jail?"

See the full comments in the video below or at the link.

Trump DOJ's sentencing of Michael Cohen could come back to haunt him: legal analystwww.youtube.com

Key trial witness Michael Cohen spills about Trump in first post-verdict interview

Former President Donald Trump's estranged ex-attorney and fixer Michael Cohen opened up about his experiences testifying in the Manhattan criminal hush money trial on MSNBC, which on Thursday ended with Trump becoming the first former U.S. president in history to be convicted of a felony.

Cohen was one of the star witnesses for the prosecution, where he detailed how the former president used him to facilitate hush payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels to conceal their extramarital affair from 2016 presidential voters, and then illegally disguise those payments as legal fees.

"How are you?" asked MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

ALSO READ: Trump just endorsed this Virginia congressional candidate whose social media isn’t so MAGA

"I guess the word is relieved," said Cohen, who previously served time in prison himself as a result of the scheme. "This has been six years in the making. Remember, the very first time I met with the district attorney's office — we talked about it when I was on your show, after putting out 'Disloyal' — the first time I met was when I was an inmate in Otisville. They came up to see me on three separate occasions, so this is a six-year process for accountability to finally be had."

"Were you surprised by the verdict?" Maddow pressed him.

"No, I was not," said Cohen. "I have spoken — I've been on so many of the shows and I've told you all along that the facts speak for themselves. The documents speak for themselves. I have listened to so many pundits come on the shows ... talking about X, Y, and Z. They couldn't be further from the truth. I would have a conversation with my lawyer and say, I don't understand it, how come they don't see the same things we are seeing? I understand that it makes great headlines and so on, but the facts are the facts and at the end of the day the facts are what prevailed here."

Watch the video below or at the link.

Michael Cohen opens up about Trump trialwww.youtube.com

Key witness Michael Cohen issues statement after Trump found guilty on all charges

Former lawyer Michael Cohen spoke out about the guilty conviction of his former boss, Donald Trump, in a statement sent to Raw Story Thursday.

Cohen went to prison after fronting Trump with cash to help cover up an alleged affair with actress and director Stormy Daniels. Trump, however, hasn't suffered any consequences for the business records that were falsified around the hush money scheme — until Thursday. The jury found him guilty on all 34 felony counts.

"Today is an important day for accountability and the rule of law," Cohen said in a statement. "While it has been a difficult journey for me and my family, the truth always matters. I want to thank my attorneys, Danya Perry and Joshua Kolb, for their invaluable guidance and support throughout this process."

ALSO READ: ‘Strategy and manipulation’: Artist draws truth from Trump’s face at hush money trial

Cohen lost both his law license and his New York taxi medallion license, rendering him unable to make any income. So, he's penned three best-selling books and headlines his own "Mea Culpa" podcast, where he trashes his former boss to millions of viewers and listeners.

Legal experts are already anticipating that, like Cohen, Trump will be sent to jail for the verdict.

Cohen was said to have been the "star witness" by Trump, but legal analysts agreed the witnesses called before proved the case long before.

"Even before Michael Cohen took the stand, they had pretty much proved beyond a reasonable doubt that these documents were false records," said former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara on his podcast last week. "And to put a fine point on it, Cohen testified ... 'I created a document called an invoice.'"

Bharara argued the reason the documents are known to be false is that the payment for Cohen could have been made in a lump sum, but CFO Allen Weisselberg and Trump decided to space it all out over time and call it a "retainer."

"So, that's just the sixth or seventh way in which prosecutors, I imagine, in summation, 'It was just B.S. Nothing was done in January, February, March, April. All those future months,"' he continued. "There was no reason to do that unless you were trying to cover up the nature of the expense."