NY: Trump on Trial!

[brucejoel99]

Yeah, it seems as if Cohen delivered on what he was expected to deliver on today:

https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/1790043392031801790
BRB Cohen... *checks notes* ... delivered the same credible & composed testimony that he's been delivering for 5 years now!? Suurely that's not the case if Jonathan Turley disagrees!

[Redban]

1). So turley’s opinion can’t count because he tweets a lot of criticism about the prosecution’s case. But that Norm Eisen guy’s opinion can count though he tweets a lot of praise about the prosecution’s case

2). Turley at least gives specifics (Cohen contradicts a prior witness’s testimony, didn’t know about Pecker’s work, taped his client unknowingly etc) to back up his piece. This Norm Eisen guy merely says, “hey, I sat next to a retired judge  who raved about Cohen!” .. who the retired is, and what the retired judge raves about … nobody knows. But let’s go with Norm Eisen’s claim instead of Turley’s anyways

[wbrocks67]

1). So turley’s opinion can’t count because he tweets a lot of criticism about the prosecution’s case. But that Norm Eisen guy’s opinion can count though he tweets a lot of praise about the prosecution’s case

2). Turley at least gives specifics (Cohen contradicts a prior witness’s testimony, didn’t know about Pecker’s work, taped his client unknowingly etc) to back up his piece. This Norm Eisen guy merely says, “hey, I sat next to a retired judge  who raved about Cohen!” .. who the retired is, and what the retired judge raves about … nobody knows. But let’s go with Norm Eisen’s claim instead of Turley’s anyways

Dude, seriously. You cannot come in this thread and actually try and use Jonathan Turley of all people as a credible source. Please be serious!

[brucejoel99]

1). So turley’s opinion can’t count because he tweets a lot of criticism about the prosecution’s case. But that Norm Eisen guy’s opinion can count though he tweets a lot of praise about the prosecution’s case

2). Turley at least gives specifics (Cohen contradicts a prior witness’s testimony, didn’t know about Pecker’s work, taped his client unknowingly etc) to back up his piece. This Norm Eisen guy merely says, “hey, I sat next to a retired judge  who raved about Cohen!” .. who the retired is, and what the retired judge raves about … nobody knows. But let’s go with Norm Eisen’s claim instead of Turley’s anyways

Dude, seriously. You cannot come in this thread and actually try and use Jonathan Turley of all people as a credible source. Please be serious!

That's Jonathan "embarrassing goalpost-mover since the moment the charges were brought" Turley, to be precise. "Judges will not like this legally pathetic case." *Proceeds to ignore state & federal judges being fine with both this case & all of its cited underlying caselaw*

Nah, clearly Norm Eisen's ignorant & naive here

[emailking]

How about it was a mixed bag, maybe, and there are some who think he did well and some who think he did not do well.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

When do we get to the testimony about falsifying the business records?

[emailking]

Well we have the testimony today that he allegedly knew the money being paid to Cohen was repayment of the Daniels payoff and not for legal services. So that.

[brucejoel99]

When do we get to the testimony about falsifying the business records?

Well we have the testimony today that he allegedly knew the money being paid to Cohen was repayment of the Daniels payoff and not for legal services. So that.

Yeah, Cohen testified that Trump personally approved of the Weisselberg scheme to have Cohen deliberately submit monthly invoices labeled "legal services rendered pursuant to the [retainer] agreement" that was in fact never real, so Trump then holding up his end of that approval by subsequently signing the checks accompanied by those stapled Cohen invoices, as testified to by prior witnesses, would be what caused them to be entered into the records, thereby falsifying those records to make them look like there was a retainer that never was.

[7,052,770]

Guys the New York Post is a bastion of high-quality objective journalism! We can take what it says TO THE BANK!

[Redban]

Guys CNN is a bastion of high-quality objective journalism! We can take what it says TO THE BANK!

[7,052,770]

Guys CNN is a bastion of high-quality objective journalism! We can take what it says TO THE BANK!

This isn't the snappy comeback you think it is.

[The Mikado]

Tomorrow might be Trump's best shot of the entire trial, arguably even more than the Defense case later on. Putting Cohen on cross has a lot of potential given how much Cohen has lied about all sorts of things over the years.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

When do we get to the testimony about falsifying the business records?

Well we have the testimony today that he allegedly knew the money being paid to Cohen was repayment of the Daniels payoff and not for legal services. So that.

Yeah, Cohen testified that Trump personally approved of the Weisselberg scheme to have Cohen deliberately submit monthly invoices labeled "legal services rendered pursuant to the [retainer] agreement" that was in fact never real, so Trump then holding up his end of that approval by subsequently signing the checks accompanied by those stapled Cohen invoices, as testified to by prior witnesses, would be what caused them to be entered into the records, thereby falsifying those records to make them look like there was a retainer that never was.

Thanks, I haven’t really followed the specifics of this testimony.  But it really seems like they should really be having Weisselberg testify that Trump personally directed him to falsify the records.  What you describe Cohen as saying is pretty oblique.

[GeorgiaModerate]

When do we get to the testimony about falsifying the business records?

Well we have the testimony today that he allegedly knew the money being paid to Cohen was repayment of the Daniels payoff and not for legal services. So that.

Yeah, Cohen testified that Trump personally approved of the Weisselberg scheme to have Cohen deliberately submit monthly invoices labeled "legal services rendered pursuant to the [retainer] agreement" that was in fact never real, so Trump then holding up his end of that approval by subsequently signing the checks accompanied by those stapled Cohen invoices, as testified to by prior witnesses, would be what caused them to be entered into the records, thereby falsifying those records to make them look like there was a retainer that never was.

Thanks, I haven’t really followed the specifics of this testimony.  But it really seems like they should really be having Weisselberg testify that Trump personally directed him to falsify the records.  What you describe Cohen as saying is pretty oblique.

Weisselberg will likely take the Fifth if they call him.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

When do we get to the testimony about falsifying the business records?

Well we have the testimony today that he allegedly knew the money being paid to Cohen was repayment of the Daniels payoff and not for legal services. So that.

Yeah, Cohen testified that Trump personally approved of the Weisselberg scheme to have Cohen deliberately submit monthly invoices labeled "legal services rendered pursuant to the [retainer] agreement" that was in fact never real, so Trump then holding up his end of that approval by subsequently signing the checks accompanied by those stapled Cohen invoices, as testified to by prior witnesses, would be what caused them to be entered into the records, thereby falsifying those records to make them look like there was a retainer that never was.

Thanks, I haven’t really followed the specifics of this testimony.  But it really seems like they should really be having Weisselberg testify that Trump personally directed him to falsify the records.  What you describe Cohen as saying is pretty oblique.

Weisselberg will likely take the Fifth if they call him.

Can’t they offer him immunity?

[emailking]

They've been around the block a few times with Weisselberg. He's loyal and has gone to prison twice, passing up the opportunity to squeal on Trump. He's not going to change course now.

[brucejoel99]

When do we get to the testimony about falsifying the business records?

Well we have the testimony today that he allegedly knew the money being paid to Cohen was repayment of the Daniels payoff and not for legal services. So that.

Yeah, Cohen testified that Trump personally approved of the Weisselberg scheme to have Cohen deliberately submit monthly invoices labeled "legal services rendered pursuant to the [retainer] agreement" that was in fact never real, so Trump then holding up his end of that approval by subsequently signing the checks accompanied by those stapled Cohen invoices, as testified to by prior witnesses, would be what caused them to be entered into the records, thereby falsifying those records to make them look like there was a retainer that never was.

Thanks, I haven’t really followed the specifics of this testimony.  But it really seems like they should really be having Weisselberg testify that Trump personally directed him to falsify the records.  What you describe Cohen as saying is pretty oblique.

Weisselberg will likely take the Fifth if they call him.

Can’t they offer him immunity?

He's not a reliable witness even if he does substantively testify as it's heavily presumed he's being paid off for his silence & lies; $750K has so far proven worth 10 months in jail without flipping, but Trump won't call him because of his cross vulnerability, & maybe also because even Weisselberg won't violate the terms of his outstanding probation by risking new felony perjury charges, which he avoided doing with his plea to misdemeanor perjury, but the D.A. understandably won't risk an unprepped non-cooperating co-conspiring witness on a maybe.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The real question is why Trump's side doesn't use Weisselberg as a defence witness.
If everything is a lie isn't he the only one who can deny what Cohen testified and exonerate Trump? At least that's what I'd think if I were a simple person following this affair.