At 2:08 p.m., Trump walks back in, his entourage in tow. Gaetz has stayed past lunch.
Three minutes later, Merchan returns.
The People had submitted instructions regarding the unsealing of the indictment, but Blanche says his intention is to rehabilitate the questions "right out of the box" after lunch, so Merchan takes a look.
Let's see how it goes with you and if it looks like we have to clean it up some more I'll read the instruction, Justice Merchan says, but Steinglass is up immediately.
The only relevance re: these questions was to show there was an improper leak (which Merchan sustained), Steinglass says, and that Cohen or Rosenberg were engaged in that conduct. No other reason, says Steinglass—this is not something to be cleaned up, but be cured by the court.
Blanche is back up now, he thinks it's entirely appropriate to elicit that a detective assigned to this case told a witness that this was "done." Merchan says there was nothing inappropriate about the question and will give Blanche the opportunity to clean up the issue.
Separately, Merchan says he has been informed that one of the jurors "apparently has" a 1:30pm appointment on Thurs—he will take it up with the juror in the robing room with one attorney from each side to discuss that further.
Now to a series of msgs btwn Cohen and the 14-yr-old prank texter (B165, now in evidence), where we left off pre-lunch.
Blanche shows the texts we heard about before lunch: Cohen tells the person the # was sent to Secret Service bc of harrassment. Then the person apologizes...
Blanche thought the point was so important that he waited just before the lunch recess to make it, angrily, with indignant accusations and statements — that a seasoned lawyer like him must have known would draw the sustained objections that they did.
Blanche likely did so as punctuation drawing jurors' attention to the point he wanted to make.
Q: Is it fair to say that at the time the press regarded this as a bit of a stunt?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Then you worked with the Natl Enquirer, in 2011, to run a story about how strong Trump looked in the polls?
A: Yes sir.
In that story, there was a positive profile of Cohen as the person who started http://shouldtrumprun.com—Blanche says you worked very hard during your time with the Trump Org to get positive stories in the press about what Trump was doing and about Cohen himself.
How did that press relationship work? asks Blanche.
Cohen explains: he would reach out to reporters, ask if they're interested in a certain topic, and offer an exclusive.
Let's take the opposite, Blanche asks. What would you take, if any, to get rid of/minimize a negative story.
That's a little different, says Cohen. Instead of me calling the journalist, they would call me. Then I would immediately go to Trump's office, we'd come up w/ response.
Cohen agrees that he had a "Rolodex" full of reporters' contact information.
"It was my routine to always advise Mr. Trump" because if he disagreed with the framing of the story that he wanted to put out, it would probably cost Cohen his job, Cohen says.
You did that all the time? Had a rolodex of journalists? Yes.
You never reached out to a reporter without checking in with Trump? It was my "routine" to check in with him about it. He would "blow up with me" if I got it wrong, I would probably lose my job.
Q: You did that a lot, right? You had a rolodex full of reporter's contact info?
A: Correct.
Q: And you didn't always have to go back to Trump to handle a story?
A: No sir.
Q: You mean you never answered a reporter w/out going to Trump?
A: It was my routine to ask him.
So over the course of 9.5 years, you never commented on a story on your own?
The initial comment, no, Cohen says. But he would often mimic the same resopnse to the next magazine, the next newspaper, and so on.
Cohen essentially says that he would always consult with Trump 👉🏼out of fear—fear of Trump blowing up at him, fear of him losing his job over a rogue comment, etc.
Blanche notes that Trump's campaign sometimes got frustrated at Cohen for going off-message, but Cohen says that's because he was relaying Trump's messaging, not the campaign's.
Q: Is it fair to say that the first time you spoke to Trump about the 2011 Daniels story, he said he was concerned about his family?
A: Yes, and the brand.
Blanche asks whether Cohen threatened legal action to get that story down, and Cohen says yes—though Davidson effectuated it
Q: Some of the reporters with which you had close relationships were Chris Cuomo? Katie Tur? Maggie Haberman? Yes, yes, yes
Blanche asks only about Haberman: would you describe your relationship with her as very strong? (Yes) You asked her to write + stories about you? (Yes sir)
Cohen agrees that yes, if it was a "NYT-style" story, he would give Haberman tips, scoops.
BLANCHE: One of the reasons you'd want relationships with reporters is to respond, to push information, to shape an article—or maybe that's not the best word, so choose the word you like—to make the article come out as favorable to you or Trump as possible?
When asked about what type of commication he would use with what type of reporter, Cohen says for a "private or unusual type of situation, I would go to one of the encrypted apps."
BLANCHE: And there were 95 secret recordings on your iPhone?
COHEN: Correct.
BLANCHE: Who else did you secretly record, other than reporters?
COHEN: Jeff Zucker, Trump.
BLANCHE: You understand that it's not ethical to record your client? [Trump was Cohen's client at the time]
COHEN: Yes, except of course crime-fraud exception.
BLANCHE: So you surreptitiously recorded your client so that you could play a privileged recorded communication with a third party?
Blanche asks about the meeting btwn Cohen, Trump, and Pecker at Trump Tower—you said the power of Natl Enquirer is its "placement in supermarkets," did you tell the grand jury—objection, sustained—did you tell anyone about that before your testimony?
Not that I recall, Cohen says
We loop back around to where the cross started yesterday: didn't you say on Tiktok that Pecker's testimony corroborated what you've been saying for years?
That's a very general statement, says Cohen.
You said it bc the People told you about his testimony, accuses Blanche.
Now back to the (false) Dino Sajudin story—you previously told law enf that he was concerned about the story bc it was about people who still worked for him, worked with him, Blanche asks, his voice softening.
You testified that all along the way, you kept Trump updated, correct? (Yes sir) But what about things like the liquidation clause in the contract? (No) Those were the kinds of things you would handle as the lawyer? (Yes sir).
Blanche jumps around again—to the McDougal story now
Q: Didn't you previously tell the govt that Trump said he didn't think the McDougal story would hurt him?
A: I would need to see that document, please.
so far, the afternoon session is odd: Blanche has Cohen confirm that Trump wanted the doorman story not to get out. He also testifies that he does not necessarily go into legal details with Trump ("which will help defense on Trump not focusing on the false business invoices").
37/ Press:
Blanche: You testified about June 16, 2016, 6:51 pm call to Pres Trump thru Keith Schiller - but you say you were receiving & making 1000s of calls.
Cohen: These were important. & I have been talking about them for 6 yrs
Bower:
Cohen explains his recollection of the calls further: These phone calls are things I've been talking about for 6 yrs. They were extremely important. I did not recall that the calls happened at a specific time of day. But I recalled the conversations I had
How many calls were you getting a day? asks Blanche
Hundreds, Cohen responds, and Blanche seems genuinely taken aback. Let's just say 50, conservatively, he says, then making a few back of the napkin calculations: so more than 50k phone calls between 2016 and today?
COHEN: These phone calls are ones I've been talking about for the past 6 years, they've been all-consuming, significant calls, so I remember the substance if not the timing.
BLANCHE: You mean to tell me you were talking about these calls for the past 6 years?
Setting aside the tens of thousands of calls Cohen received or placed since 2016, Blanche chooses on one: Do you have a specific recollection of the 06/16/16 call? He shows Cohen the call log, and Cohen says yes he remembers, based on the other documents.
I recalled the conversation based on the other documents.
I understand, Blanche says, but that's not what he's asking. He's asking if Cohen has a specific recollection of that conversation on that phone call on that day in June?
Now back to the surreptitious 2m51s recording of Trump, in which he says "our friend David."
Recall, Cohen says Pecker was being considered for CEO of Time, & there was a concern about a secret box of docs that would change hands to whoever succeeded Pecker.
Blanche brings up the "hit by a bus" comment about Pecker, and asks, The concern here was even beyond the election—meaning, this conversation wasn't tied to the election? There was a real concern he could get hit by a bus?
Yes sir, Cohen replies.
Later, Cohen says Pecker told him not to worry—there was nothing int the files, and he wasn't being considered for CEO of Time anymore.
Now to the bit on the recording about "financing," when Trump said to pay in "cash." Isn't it true that when you worked for him, Trump would very often purchase things in cash? Blanche asks. He would even buy certain properties with cash, and "without financing"?
That was the messaging he was giving, Cohen says, that Trump is very rich, so he can pay cash.
Blanche wants even more clarification to hammer the point home—when he says cash, Trump doesn't mean "green," as you testified?
Cohen says he was talking about paying by check—and Blanche, seeing an opening, jumps in: isn't that the point right when the recording cut off?
The recording cut off bc I got a phone call, Cohen says calmly.
Blanche is trying to get Cohen to say that Trump didn't necessary mean pay with paper bills when he mentioned "cash" on the recording. He wants him to concede that "cash" could mean no financing on the deal, as opposed to a suitcase full of cash situation.
Klasfeld:
That's why the next line of the transcript after Cohen rejects the proposition of "pay[ing] with cash" is the word "check," Cohen says.
Blanche changes tack, and asks slowly: What phone was that recording on?
It was one of the two phones, Cohen replies, still calm.
Blanche tacks back to the recording, showing the transcript cutting off right at "Check."
Just so I understand, Blanche continues evenly, you're in a meeting with Trump about the financing or cash with the McDougal story, but the bank calls, and you just answer that call? What was it about? ...
Blanche picks at another inconsistency: you use encrypted apps, but some of the most key communications were just on text right? And the documents—the NDA itself—were just emailed back and forth?
Between myself and Mr Davidson, yes, Cohen says.
Merchan excuses the jury, and asks an attorney from each side to join him in the robing room, I assume to discuss the juror's Thursday 1:30pm appointment.
@debrashannon@JanisKay Thank you both! I am SO bone tired today, from being up half the night w/ a bellyache, from loading the POD yesterday... and this.
At 3:24 p.m., Trump walks back in with Blanche at his elbow, smiling with him, seeming happy with his performance—but that's just my own speculation.
Merchan returns to fill us in on the conference. Steinglass says let's wait and see where we're at, not promise the jury yet they can leave at 1pm. That makes sense to Blanche—if it comes to it, we can address it that afternoon.
Donald Trump's lawyers pulled a surprise move today.
They revealed Michael Cohen had a very different reason for calling Trump's bodyguard on Oct. 26, 2016—casting doubt on the supposed "green light" to the Stormy Daniels deal.
You learned that ABC had offered about the same amount of money you were going to pay? (Yes) Who was the reporter—setting aside whether it's true or not, Blanche adds quickly—you learned this from?
John Santucci, Cohen says, after blanking on his name first.
Do recall saying to Pomerantz that Davidson on behalf of Daniels was engaging in extortion?
Objection—overruled.
Yes, Cohen recalls says that they were extorting Trump.
Cohen agrees that he would work on "new projects," including the Apprentice—and that was for the Trump Org? asks Blanche.
No, I don't think the Apprentice would be for the Trump Org.
Cohen's other duties incl. legal work for Don Jr, possibly Ivanka, and Melania—and you never had a retainer agreement with any of those individuals, and the reason was you didn't need one bc you were employed by the Trump Org, and that you didn't have to worry about getting paid?
Q: The truth is, for the entire time you worked for the Trump Org, you never had a retainer agreement?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you were acting as a lawyer that whole time?
A: Well I did legal matters and non-legal matters.
Where's Blanche going with this? The answer is, the defense maintains that the $420,000 paid to Cohen in installments of $35K/month was his legal fees, not reimbursements for Daniels, the RedFinch expense, grossing up and the bonus.
Blanche's line of questioning here seems clear: for Cohen's tenure at the Trump Org, he did some legal work at least, but never had a retainer, and there's nothing wrong or unethical with that.
Now we see what I think is Cohen's letter in response to a Common Cause FEC complaint—Blanche begins to read it, and asks: Cohen paid the money, and Trump reimbursed you from his personal account?
Either from his own funds, or the trust, Cohen clarifies.
The FEC complaint was sealed, Blanche clarifies, and yet Cohen showed the "sealed" complaint to some reporters. Cohen was angry, even said he might seek sanctions, and was sick of defending himself from "frivolous allegations."
Blanche displays Cohen's statement at the time, the one in which he wrote: Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump.
I was validating the statement I had sent out with that paragraph, Cohen says. I wanted them to believe that it was true.
Did you tell them it was true?
I called them and told them my statement was true, Cohen confirms.
We hear from Bove for the first time now, who wants to address the potential testimony of Brad Smith on campaign finance law: the category they want to discuss is general defintions and terms that relate to this case, such as "campaign contribution."
What has changed since Merchan's ruling: both parties put in instructions, incl abt FECA. Bove doesn't want to encroach on Merchan's potential legal instructions, wants to make sure the crt is still contemplating setting up what are potential "battling" witnesses.
Bove wants to touch on basic statutory definitions and some phrases w/in those definitions that they think it's important that one way or another the jury gets instructions on, whether through dueling experts or another way.
Bove would seek to elicit from Smith an interpretation of "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office," the "irrespective rule" from the FEC's regulation, and the press exemption, along with certain definitions of contribution, limits, expenditure, and others.
He continues to discuss what the defense plans to elicit from Brad Smith—trying to give the jury a sense of what the requirements are for certain terms, and how the FEC has applied them. Not hypotheticals, he clarifies, applications in practice.
70/ Btw, court is finished for the week in the Trump trial since tomorrow is a day off so Trump can attend Barron’s graduation (maybe he'll sleep through that too)
McB:
The last issue is the press exemption, which has a basis in the statute, as well as the FEC's regulations, and a cited advisory opinion—"just to give the jury a little bit of content around these terms." But, he says again he doesn't want to tread on Merchan's instructions.
You believe that the biggest impetus of this is bc we have competing instructions, not the facts of the case and the way they came in? Merchan asks Bove.
Bove says he just wants everyone to be "eyes wide open" coming into Monday, which is when this testimony could come in.
Colangelo is up: 95% of the proffered testimony flies in the face of your honor's instructions, which prohibits the "interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws."
That kind of testimony from an expert is precisely why there's a general and broadly followed prohibition on this type of testimony, Colangelo says.
He mentions this is compounded by the prosecution's expert witness: "But then we have three people telling the jury what the law is," Colangelo says, stopping to gesture toward Merchan, "when there should be one."
He's not done: the possibility of any testimony on the press exemption has never been disclosed, Colangelo continues, so there's "serious notice problem" from the outset.
Colangelo rapidly adds on more arguments, so quickly that the court reporter asks him to repeat himself.
"Your honor, what Mr Bove just described is totally outside and way beyond both what your honor already ruled, and any generally accepted prohibition on expert testimony," Colangelo says by way of conclusion.
The jury has to get alternate info, one way or another, as to how to apply these principles, Bove says. We don't think this jury should be evaluating a FECA violation, but we understand we lost that fight. So we want them to understand what those principles are, in a fair way.
I don't think the fact that both of you submitted jury charges necessitates changes my ruling to the motions in limine, says Justice Merchan, directing parties to pgs 1–3, then reads from it.
What you're asking me is to enlarge this decision quite a bit, Merchan says to Bove.
Justice Merchan says he will "read and study" both sets of submission, but until then, the judge says, his earlier ruling has not changed—and the defense witness's testimony is "greatly limited."
Nothing else from either side, we discuss scheduling. "I'm doing everything possible to avoid big breaks between summations, jury charge, and deliberations," says Merchan. Parties asked if we can start early and late some days, and that's possible.
Blanche says he has "not a lot" left with Cohen, and he'll be finished with the cross Monday before the morning break. [Me: 👏🏻]
For the redirect, Hoffinger estimates under an hour.
For the defense case, Blanche says he expects to reach a decision "very soon today" and will communicate that to the court. There may be rebuttal witnesses, but Blanche says it's certainly reasonable to believe that aside from Brad Smith, the other witnesses can be on and off Mon
Possibility that we'll be done with presentation of evidence of Mon, and have that pre-charge conference same day.
@GottaLaff
Why in the actual FUCK does Trump wear a tie like that? Is it to piss me off personally? Because it offends me personally.
Just another reason why I will piss on his grave, if at all possible.
They should consider burying him at sea, like Osama Bin Laden, so people like me can't have that opportunity.
@GottaLaff
NFL
Loud nose blowing is disgusting. My father-in-law sounded like a flock of geese sometimes, even when people were eating. I think it is rude and inconsiderate. To top it off he used a cloth hankerchief he would then fold up and put back in his pocket. AUGGGGGHHHH!!!!.
If you gotta do that, excuse yourself, go to a restroom, close the door. Maybe cut a loud fart to cover up the sound. At least that is probably just gas, not snot.
@GottaLaff
NFL
From 12 years ago, Lewis Black's take on Trump 2012. Truly, one of the funniest (and most prescient) comedy routines ever. And it's all still true! This talk of Cohen drumming up support for Trump 2012 reminded of it.
Add comment