Det sidste vidne har optrådt i retssagen imod Trump i New York, hvor ingen ved, hvad han står tiltalt for. Det var forsvarets vidne, anklagerens sidste vidne var Michael Cohen. De kloge debatterer om det var en god ide for forsvaret at føre flere vidner, efter at Cohen havde afsløret sig selv om en tyv.
Forsvaret ville gerne banke sin pointe igennem, ved at vise, hvor grotesk denne retssag er, men flere peger på, at det generelt er en dårlig ide. Det er anklagerens rolle at føre bevis for sin påstand og ved at fortsætte sit forsvar ud over nødvendigheden, kommer man let ved at tage sig skyldig ud ala “the lady doth protest too much, the jury mightthink” Det ville derfor være bedre med en “vi aner ikke, hvad i taler om” attitude.
Uanset hvad, bidrog dette ekstranummer med sit eget show. Dommer Merchant tog nemlig voldsomt anstød af, at vidnet Robert Costello, “an old-school New York lawyer”, tilsyneladende himlede med øjnene, til en af dommerens kendelser og smed næsten alle ud fra retssalen for at give Costello en reprimande, skriver Politico
During a critical period in 2018, Costello consulted with Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer. Now, as a witness for the defense, Costello had one primary purpose: undermine Cohen’s credibility. Costello did appear to score some points on that front, though his churlishness in court — while clearly pleasing Tr ump — may have diminished the effectiveness of his testimony.
Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness, ended his three-and-a-half days of testimony earlier on Monday, just before prosecutors rested. He reiterated the account that he told several times last week: Trump, he said, instructed him to pay $130,000 to silence porn star Stormy Daniels and then approved a scheme to falsify records related to the payment.
But Costello testified that Cohen told him the opposite in 2018, shortly after the Daniels hush money came to public light and the FBI raided Cohen’s home and office. According to Costello, Cohen repeatedly and unequivocally declared in a private meeting and phone calls that Trump knew nothing about the payment to prevent Daniels from going public in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign with her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier.
“The stench of deceit hung in the air as I sat in the front row of a Manhattan courtroom.” skrev Alan Dershowitz, der også var i retssalen, hvor han oplevede “the palpable bias that this judge holds against Trump”. Dershowitz lægger vægt på, at det er Trump, der er tiltalt og som tiltalt, har han ret til et forsvar. Ved at true et af forsvarets vidner, truer dommeren tiltaltes ret til et forsvar uden at tiltalte har gjort sig skyldig i en forseelse. Derfor burde den slags sager vises på TV.
I was shocked, along with the other lawyers watching in the audience.
Under the 6th Amendment, a defendant has a right to confront his accuser and that is done through the testimony of others.
Judge Merchan denied Trump that right by unfairly limiting Costello’s testimony.
But the judge truly revealed his apparent unhinged prejudice against Trump when he exploded after Costello, a lawyer himself, expressed his surprise over the mystifying rulings.
Merchan lost control over the perceived slight and angrily ordered the court police to clear the room.
I was never asked to leave, so I stayed. I wish that the public could have seen what I witnessed – because I believe the judge’s bias against Trump came through loud and clear.
‘Do you raise your eyebrows at me?’ Merchan shouted at Costello. ‘Did you stare at me?’
He sounded like a paranoid schizophrenic. A nut on the street. The psycho in the film Taxi Driver.
Then Merchan threatened to exclude all of Costello’s testimony against Cohen from the trial.
I was flabbergasted.
For one, Costello’s behavior wasn’t egregious and he is allowed to act surprised.
But more than that, the idea that a judge would punish Trump by denying him an opportunity to present evidence over the actions of a witness is preposterous. It’s unethical. It’s unconstitutional.
Trump is not responsible for Costello’s behavior.
It was one of the most shocking demonstrations of bias by a judge I’ve ever seen.
Kyle Becker mener, at dommer Merchan grundlæggende var pikeret over, at Costello ville vidne om, at Cohen havde fortalt ham, at alt, hvad han foretog sig med Stormy Daniels, var på eget initiativ, og således frikende Trump for alt!
Et tidligere vidne for forsvaret ville gerne have præsenteret kompleksiteten i loven om valgkamps-bidrag for juryen, som man kunne læse i Politico, men fik begrænset sit udsagn af dommer Merchant
Trump’s defense team wants to call election law expert Brad Smith to testify about federal campaign finance law. But the judge ruled this morning that allowing Smith to testify expansively on that topic would supplant the judge’s role to determine what the law is.
“There is no question this would result in a battle of the experts, which will only serve to confuse, and not assist, the jury,” Merchan declared near the beginning of today’s court session.
Merchan did not block Trump from calling Smith, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. But the judge said he’d be restricted to the basics of the FEC and to “general definitions and terms” in campaign finance law, like what counts as a contribution or expenditure.
Dommeren vil ikke have, at juryen bliver forvirret, hvis eksperten i føderal lovgivning, tolker den føderale lovgivning anderledes end byretsdommeren. En dom skal jo helst være ud over enhver rimelig tvivl og så går det ikke med dissens. Byron York talte med eksperten, Brad Smith, efter dennes begrænsede vidneudsagn
“Judges instruct the juries on the law,” Smith said, “and they don’t want a battle of competing experts saying here’s what the law is. They feel it’s their province to make that determination. The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex and just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much.”
Smith gave the example of a product liability lawsuit over a complicated piece of machinery. “And you just said to the jury they’re guilty if you find them negligent. Well, what is negligence? Negligence is not using ordinary due care. And the jury has no idea of what is technologically feasible, what are the industry norms, how do people understand it, and that sort of thing.” In this case, FECA is a very complicated piece of machinery.
The goal of his hoped-for testimony, Smith said, was “to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious.” As an example, Smith cited the phrase “for the purpose of influencing an election,” which has been heard during much analysis of the trial. “You read the law and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure,” Smith explained. “But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation — all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office.”
What is the point of that? “We would have liked to flag that exception for the jury and talk a little bit about what it means,” Smith said. “And also, we would have talked about ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ is not a subjective test, like ‘What was my intention?’ — it’s an objective test. So hiring campaign staff is for the purpose of influencing an election. Renting space for your campaign office, buying ads, maybe doing polling, printing up bumper stickers, travel to campaign rallies, renting venues for campaign rallies — all of those things exist only because you are running for office. But under the personal use rules, a lot of things candidates do running for office are not considered campaign expenditures, things like paying for a weight loss program or a gym membership, nicer clothes, teeth whitening, or all that sort of thing. It may be true that you do those things in part to help yourself get elected — you might not do them otherwise — but they are not obligations that exist simply because you are running for office. Lots of people do those things.”
Smith offered another example. “Go back to 1999. Hillary Clinton buys a house in New York. She bought it clearly to influence the election — I mean absolutely, right? — because she had to have a residence in New York. It is totally indisputable — that is a reason why she bought it. But it’s not a campaign expenditure. It doesn’t matter. People buy houses. We would have wanted to inform the jury about the notion of personal use and talked about the idea that what is a campaign expense is an objective test, not a subjective test.”
Det er værd at notere, at spørgsmålet om Trumps intentioner ligger til grund for næsten alle anklager. I Fulton County i Georgia, er det spørgsmålet om Trump havde onde intentioner, da han påpegede at valget var stjålet fra amerikanernes vilje. I sagen om de hemmelige papirer, som Trump tog med sig hjem, handler det også om hans indre, der ikke kan tiltros tillid, selv om han havde Folkets mandat. Og ligeledes søges det bevist, at optøjerne ved Capitol, var Trumps ønske og plan for at beholde magten. Overraskende er det derfor, at dommer Merchan tilsyneladende overvejer at stryge Trumps påståede fortsæt fra jury-instruktionerne, således at anklageren ikke skal bevise at Trump havde til formål at begå ulovligheder. Forsæt var ellers hele sagens kerne, at Trump fiflede med regnskabet for at dække over noget.
Anklagerens sidste vidne var som sagt Cohen, der fuldkommen tabte overblikket over sine mange løgne fra vidneskrankerne. Under krydsforhøret afslørede han, at han havde svindlet Trump for 60.000 dollars ved at tage betaling for fiktive ydelser. Jonathan Turley var både i retslokalet og i spøgefuldt humør
I am out of the courtroom. It was quite a morning to have someone admit to stealing money from his client and then confirm that he wants to run for Congress. It will be a novel campaign: people usually wait to get into Congress before they commit major felonies…
Og hjemme samlede Turley sine tanker
Cohen clearly has found a home for his unique skill as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer.
(…)
At the end of the day, Cohen is the ultimate shining object for prosecutors to use as a distraction from the glaring omissions in their case.
Prior witnesses testified that Trump’s payments to Cohen were designated as “legal expenses” not by Trump but by his accounting staff.
Moreover, Cohen admitted that he worked for Trump for years in his murky capacity as a fixer. References to payments as a retainer were approved by Allen Weisselberg, a retired executive with the Trump Organization.
The “legal expense” label was a natural characterization for a lawyer who was paid monthly and was on-call as Trump’s personal counsel.
In any other district, this case would never have been allowed in trial. It certainly now should be facing a directed verdict by the court.
Viva Frei underholder tanken om, at svindlen stikker dybere. Cohen lavede skjulte lydoptagelser på sine klienter og også på Trump. Og sammenholdt med, at han grundlæggende holdt sig selv beskæftiget på Trumps regning ved at være den betalende del af ‘catch and kill’-proceduren, ligner han en, der havde fundet sig en lille korrupt gænge. Pengene til udlægget for Stormy Daniels, havde han selv skaffet ved at tage et lån i huset, bag ryggen på sin kone. Og de fiktive ydelser, var en del af den samlede sum på 420.000 dollars, som Cohen blev kompenseret for, hvori de 130.000,- gik til Daniels.
It wasn’t Bazini all along.
“Det er altid dem, man mistænker mindst”, skrev Jack Posobiec, om en tysk politiker, der slikkede på toiletbørster og smurte sit ansigt ind i fæces, blev afsløret i at have voldtaget børn. Og hvem kunne have troet, at en serial løgner, også var en forbryder? Ikke CNN
‘I’m Still Reeling!’: CNN Anchors Shocked by Revelation that Cohen Stole Money from Trump Organization
Jake Tapper on Monday reacted to the news that Manhattan D.A.’s “star witness” Michael Cohen stole $30,000 from the Trump Organization.
TAPPER: “Yeah. No, it’s — it’s fascinating stuff. And I have to say, I’m still kind of reeling from the revelation that Michael Cohen stole money from the Trump Organization. And that wasn’t, at least to my knowledge, that the prosecution didn’t get that —“
LAURA COATES: “Right.”
TAPPER: “— get that out earlier. Because it’s not as though, the prosecution is going to be helped by further evidence that Michael Cohen is a shady character.”
COATES: “Yeah.”
TAPPER: “I mean, let’s — I’ll get to the newest stuff in a second, but, like, I mean, what’s just — what’s your reaction to that news? Because that was just kind of stunning.”
COATES: “I’m — I’m shocked that we are hearing it for the first time on day three of cross-examination of Michael Cohen, that the prosecution did not take the sting out, did not front it, because it goes to the heart of the actual case. It’s not just about establishing him as a liar. They’ve done that. The prosecution front did that. We knew that he has convictions. But going to the heart of what you were telling your employer about, what money you were owed and the extent of it. We’re talking about $420,000. We’ve already seen the paying instruction here.”
TAPPER: “Right. This isn’t like 15 bucks.”
COATES: “It’s not 15 bucks. And we — I mean, if you — if you go to the table, you can break down what was already know. We’ve known about what the breakdown of the money is, $130,000 to Daniels and her attorney. You’ve got $50,000 that’s Red Finch. This is important here. This was mentioned today, that he only gave Red Finch $20,000 and he handed them in a brown paper bag, by the way, just thinking about how odd that is.” [crosstalk]
TAPPER: “And just one — and just — and just one quick note. Red Finch, is this political organization that apparently, according to Michael Cohen, helped them goose these bogus, Internet polls —”
Jake Tapper is “shocked, shocked I tell you!” that serial liar and convicted felon Michael Cohen would steal from the Trump organization.
These people call themselves professional journalists.
CNN’s Legal Analyst Highlights That Michael Cohen Stealing from Trump Is ‘More Serious of a Crime Than Falsifying Business Records’
“Here’s the direct testimony the way Michael Cohen explained what happened. ‘That’s what was owed, and I didn’t feel Mr. Trump deserved the difference.’ That’s a lot different than ‘I stole $60,000 from my boss on the transaction at the heart of this case.’”
“And by the way, the fact that he was ever charged with larceny is important because stealing $60,000 through fraud, which would be larceny in New York State, is more serious of a crime than falsifying business records.”
So the prosecution’s star witness is a convicted perjurer who just admitted to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization?
These sham prosecutions of the leading opposition presidential candidate during an election year are a blatant display of Banana Republic, third-world tactics that are entirely anti-American.
MSNBCs Lawrence O’Donnell forsøgte at redde anklagerens hovedvidnes ære med ordene “Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, & it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved & the bonus he had gotten the year before” Som Jonathan Turley formulerede det, ville det have været “…more convincing if O’Donnell, a self-proclaimed socialist, had just called it a redistribution effort from the super-rich to the rich.” ‘Tilbageerobring’ kaldte en smed det, da han bøffede et helt nyt topnøglesæt. Præsident Biden “cancelled student debt” skrev Reuters i samme ånd. Og Harvey Weinstein tiltvang sig lidt ømhed…?
O’Donnell havde også lagt mærke til, at dommer Merchant var utrolig hurtig til at afvise indvendinger eller give dem medhold. Og baseret på denne enestående dommer-kvalitet, konkluderede O’Donnell, at Trumps advokat var særdeles ringe til sit arbejde, fordi han konsekvent blev underkendt(!) En bedre udlægning af sagens kerne giver Vivek Ramaswamy herunder
Selv Oliver Stone kan se det. Og Trump er da også i vanligt højt humør
“We’ll be resting pretty quickly, meaning resting the case. I won’t be resting. I don’t rest. I’d like to rest sometimes, but I don’t get to rest.”
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar