Posted on 05/14/2024 6:14:28 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Wikimedia Commons
Former Donald Trump attorney Michael Cohen is the only witness who has the slightest chance of proving anything in New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s highly publicized hush money case. But Cohen’s recycled plea-deal testimony still won’t be enough to convict the former president.
Trump was charged by Bragg with using false business records to cover up another crime. But, as I pointed out in Chronicles last month, the indictment failed to identify the underlying crime.
Based on media coverage of this tawdry sham, it does not appear that the district attorney has been able to fill this gaping hole in the logic of his case. Yet Bragg will almost certainly attempt to shoehorn the plea agreement from Cohen in another case into the Trump trial. This, Bragg must believe, is a way of relieving himself of any burden to prove that underlying crime.
Let’s start by reviewing the Trump-connected crime Cohen is convicted of. In November 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion, making a false statement to a bank, and campaign finance violations.
It turned out that Cohen had earned approximately $2.4 million from a side hustle involving Chicago taxi cab medallions. Cohen got in trouble with the law because he did not report or pay taxes on this income stream, which had nothing to do with Trump. Facing a huge prison sentence for that crime, Cohen then agreed to also plead guilty to something involving his work for the Trump campaign. Had the campaign finance violation been the only reason he was in legal trouble, he easily could have knocked down this charge with a semi-competent lawyer. But he had other problems so Cohen’s value to the get-Trump prosecutor in 2018 became his ability to dirty Trump.
According to the indictment, Cohen “caused and made payments” to porn star Stormy Daniels “to influence the 2016 election” and “coordinated with one or more members of the campaign.” Trump then reimbursed Cohen for these payments. So, is that illegal? This argument was tried in federal court. After Michael Cohen’s plea deal admitting to this supposed campaign finance violation, get-Trump lawyers attempted to force the FEC to fine Trump for his role in the payments. In Free Speech For People v. FEC a district court dismissed this attempt. While some have argued that the split decision before the FEC and later procedural dismissal by the district court do not constitute an exoneration, their logic is backwards. Bragg needs to show Trump entered the false business records to further or conceal a crime. The burden is on Bragg to show an underlying crime took place.
The “contribution” only becomes a crime if Trump failed to report it to the Federal Elections Commission. But Trump did disclose the payment in an FEC filing. Here is the document. Yet even if he had failed to report the payment to the FEC, or if he should have reported the nature of the payment more explicitly, Trump cannot be held liable for failing to report an expenditure of his own money. As I wrote here last year:
If Trump reimbursed Cohen, long-standing precedent provides that Cohen is no longer the one making the contribution for purposes of the FEC reporting. FEC regulations say, “A loan, to the extent it is repaid, is no longer a contribution.” Thus, if Trump reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment, it can no longer be considered a contribution on behalf of Cohen. This is devastating to the prosecution’s theory because individuals who are not the candidate (e.g., Cohen, but not Trump) are subject to the $2,700 per individual contribution limit. But Trump could give as much money as he wanted to his own campaign, without limits, so long as he disclosed it—which he did.
It’s worth remembering that Hillary Clinton campaign donors apparently committed the mirror image of what Trump is accused of doing here. As I wrote in The Federalist in 2018, “Remember all those women who came out around that same time (October of 2016) accusing candidate Trump of sexual harassment? Turns out that a lawyer sympathetic to candidate Clinton contacted Clinton donors for money with which to pay some of these women to accuse Trump right before the election.”
I will not be surprised by a unanimous verdict of not guilty clearing Donald Trump of all charges in Bragg’s absurd prosecution. Nor will I be surprised if Trump declines to take the stand in an effort to avoid unnecessarily extending the farce. This case is a two-legged stool, unable to stand on its own merits.
A great overview of the Alvin Bragg case.
Doesn’t need too. That jury pool likely decided Trump was guilty of “something” before the trial even started.
Trump needs but a single juror.
Michael Cohen Cannot Save Alvin Bragg’s Absurd Case
~~~
Biased jurors can
I doubt a unanimous not guilty verdict is in the cards. The legal argument is compelling, but like they say in NYC, “ain’t nobody got no time for dat.”
Trump needs to sue Bragg’s water buffalo azz.
The boy abused the justice system to try to lynch a whitey.
If Trump is convicted in this travesty of justice, lacking any evidence of his guilt, then it meets the full definition of a Stalin show trial.
Cohen isn’t a good liar. You can pick them out. He’s a sleeze and needs this notoriety to write articles. Cohen will sell his soul to the highest bidder. He could care less. And why don’t we see anyone....anyone...say he’s a great guy.
It is, but we all know that Merchan will only allow the jurors the ability to see things which appear to make Trump look guilty. In their minds, he will be, as Merchan will direct this verdict.
Sure it will be overturned on appeal. It will be too late by then. There will be many who won’t vote for Trump because of a conviction. Heck, even the RNC might decide that they can’t allow a convicted felon to be on the ticket.
Nothing would surprise me at this point. I think it’s buck up buttercup time.
The fact that Bragg knew that Cohen was a convicted perjurer should be devastating to his case. How can a jury believe anything in this case?
As I understand it, Cohen decided on his own to buy off Daniels.
Trump felt that he had to make his lawyer whole, so yes, the payments to Cohen could be accurately described as fees as far as Trump was concerned. If you want the services of a lawyer, you really do need to pay the lawyer.
For Trump to pay $130,000 is a small matter. To Cohen, an unreimbursed $130,000 would be a big matter.
If Michael thought he was going to get a single check for a quarter of a mil...the Trump folks said "no way"...you scheming pr***.
Hint: It’s not Alvin Braggs case to manage.
I suspect lawyers do a lot of chit-chat that gets billed as professional service fees.
I have read (here) that this judge will not allow Cohen’s previous history of lying, perjury, etc be introduced to THIS trial. Not sure how accurate that is or if there are any sound reasons of legality for it (doubtful). So while we all outside that courtroom may roll our eyes at Bragg’s case reliance upon a convicted serial perjurer, it will not be discussed here in this trial for the jury to hear. No?
Agree!
The whole point is to simply air out all of Trump’s dirty laundry. It’s basically a Biden Campaign Ad.
If you have a witness with a problem like this MAYBE you bring it up on direct, but in this case there’s just far too much heavy heavy baggage that Cohen carries
Yes. Yesterday was the first time I actually sat down and watched the running commentary on Fox News. I hope Trump’s defense team eviscerates Cohen on the stand. He has NO credibility whatsoever. It would be fun to be sitting in the courtroom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.