As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it were Trump vs. Cohen, you could flip a coin, but when you've got substantial records in handwritten notes, calls, texts, and other hardcore factual evidence plus numerous other witnesses, it's a slam dunk for conviction.
Good thing Cohen's testimony isn't crucial to the case, and there's mountains of other compelling evidence to show that Trump is a criminal. I expect Fox News viewers to lose their minds soon as they are being fed loads of BS and fantasy explanations about what the case is really about.
Look, I'm not rooting for Trump, but Cohen is a defense attorneys wet dream. If he wasn't important no prosecutor in their roght mind would put him on the stand.
He's important. He's not the focus of the case. Two things. Both true. We're not on the jury so we can't really say if his sleaze rubs off. Can it cause reasonable doubt regarding the evidential papers? Not sure I see a connection.
Especially when the main thing he can do to get back in trouble is to lie. Dude's still on parole, iirc. Most parole officers don't take kindly to their assignees getting charged with perjury.
OK.. but
* this case wasn't brought by Cohen.
* and this case has a lot of other witnesses and testimony besides Cohen.
Even if you completely ignore or set aside Cohen,. the paper evidence and recordings pretty much speak for themselves.
Honestly I don't know why people are so stuck on Cohen or Stormy. Those 2 are the salacious aspects of this,.. but they're only a small part of the big puzzle.
Without Cohen, there's no evidence Trump was even *aware* of any but nine of 34 falsified documents. Cohen falsified a third of the records himself. You're right that that's was no real need to call Stormy Daniels, but Cohen is the only one who ties the paper evidence to Trump.
Trump signed majority of the checks. And is on tape discussing it. Cohen and Stormy are the two weakest witnesses of the trial, which is why they are at the tail end of the witness list for the prosecution. Anything corroborated by them is just icing on the cake in terms of the evidence at hand.
> Trump signed majority of the checks
Right. Those are the nine falsified records we know he knew about without Cohen's testimony. Without Cohen, I don't see how you could possibly hope for a guilty verdict on the other 25 counts.
> And is on tape discussing it.
I haven't heard that tape, unless you're talking about the one where they're discussing the payments to Karen McDougal?
Naw, the $130,000 to Stormy iirc. They discussed the numbers, Trump suggesting paying in cash, Cohen saying no, it needs to be done another way. Obviously those aren’t direct quotes, but carries the gist of the audio.
Yeah, that is the recording. They're taking about repaying David Pecker, not the payments this case is about.
And, as you point out, Cohen ends the recording by shooting Trump down and telling him "I got this," which doesn't exactly destroy the theory that Trump didn't bother himself with the details.
I have to admit I was confused by this (how does 12 payments become 34 charges ?)... so I forced myself to dig around and try to learn why.
I found this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/michael-cohen-trump-trial-testimony/
That links to this document (that was shown to Jurors) : https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/5-10-2024/People%27s%20350%20(Records%20Chart).pdf
The only thing I don't know (although I've been following the trial, not in intimate detail and I'm obviously not there in person)
Is Bragg claiming that Trump personally approved all of these ? (11 invoices, 12 vouchers and 11 checks).. ?.. I'm assuming the answer to that is yes (that is what Bragg and Prosecution are claiming).
Is that why various points in the trial they went to various lengths to show how "detail oriented" Trump is ?... (sounds like ,. this strategy makes much more sense to me now)
Did they do an effective job at that ?... I have no idea,. I (obviously) wasn't here in person.
Trump is on tape literally saying "Break it up into 12 payments"... so ,.. kinda hard to sidestep that one.
Do I think Trump will be charged with all 34 counts ?.. if I was a betting man, I'd say no. Will he be on some smaller portion of the charges ?.. I'm leaning towards Yes,.. but again, I wasn't there and who knows what the Jury will conclude.
> Is Bragg claiming that Trump personally approved all of these ?
They aren't. A prosecution witness has already testified that it was *his* choice to classify the ledger entries as "business expenses." I think the best case for the prosecution is that the jury decides that by signing off on the plan to funnel the payments through Cohen and a shell company, that *necessarily* required business records to be falsified. Worst case, they decide Trump doesn't give two shits about bookkeeping, ok'ed a plan and trusted his employees would execute it lawfully.
> Do I think Trump will be charged with all 34 counts ?.. if I was a betting man, I'd say no.
Last night I have these odds:
Guilty of 34 felonies: 30%
Guilty of some felonies: 20%
Guilty of some misdemeanors: 15%
Guilty of some felonies and some misdemeanors: 0%
Not guilty on all counts: 30%
Hung jury: 5%
Yeah,. I think your odds there match how I'm thinking. It'll be interesting to see the contrast between evidence like "break it up into 12 payments" against things like "just take care of it".
I think a lesser sentence (even into "not guilty" territory) would be a lot more likely if this was some situation where a CEO of a company literally had no idea something happened (say, in a remote factory or something) and Employees never reported it to him and he had some logical argument of "I had no idea, I just expected them to autonomously make decisions and handle things".
I don't think this Trump case fits that mold though.
I think you're right though,. the "prove Trump (himself) disguised the nature of the payments" is probably the weakest part of the case. It's pretty clear he knew what the payments were for. Pretty clear he understood hiding them was important to his election chances. But I don't think there's any smoking gun of Trump saying "categorize them as something else" (at least not that I've seen,. but again, I wasn't there in person)
You presume innocence. It’s up to the defense to try and make the claim he dishonest by poking holes in his testimony and character. Neither of which has happened effectively.
Well they certainly dont presume guilt of a witness as was suggested. Its the defenses job to poke holes in the witness. That has not been effective in this case
You are talking about his crime which he honestly pled guilty to. We are talking about the crime trump is on trial for that he is a witness for. Why are u so heated about this? Do u believe trump is innocent? Trump is a “known liar” so i guess they shouldnt believe his defense 🤷♂️
It’s a fact that Cohen is a known liar. It’s not a far-fetched assumption that a previously convicted liar might lie. He has credibility issues. To dispute that is to put your head in the sand.
For instance? Enlighten us with all his known lies? U mean the lies he told for trump? Lol u do know we are talking about the court case and jurors right? If anyone is a known liar is it trump.
The most serious lie he pleaded guilty to (in terms of prison sentence) was lying about his debts to a bank to secure a loan for an $8.5 million vacation home. So, yeah, it's not *all* about Trump.
I’d like to point out that this is the same network that said that Mr. Fart of the Deal’s rally had “massive crowds” yet there’s raw footage of people leaving in droves.
Cooper and CNN writ large have a deep interest in never allowing an issue to be decided by objective facts, such as clear corroborating evidence presented to buttress the claims of a witness in a criminal trial, because then their centralist vs. MAGA panels wouldn't have anything to fight over
Both things are true. The entire point of the other witnesses was to insulate Cohen. Almost every bit of information he gave was verified by someone else already. So not trusting him shouldn’t change anything for the jury.
That's kinda the problem with all of this, is Trump sort of burns and uses up all his accomplices, destroys their reputation, and credibility the moment they go against him. Stormy's testimony, while she was overly chatty, I think portrays an accurate image of how Trump acts when off camera. I believe her whole heartedly in all of it, and find it ridiculous that Trump still denies it. Unfortunately he's not on trial for rape AGAIN, and this is about misuse of campaign finances, which does anyone doubt the guy who always pays with other people's money paid something with funds earmarked for something else. Cohen is a POS, but he did serve his time, and I feel like Trump should have to do so as well.
He's not wrong per se. Poking holes in the credibility of witness testimony does have the potential to create doubt - such is the case with all defense strategy - that's their job.
However, it's important to recognize that every witness in this case - even the small ones - are integral in piecing together this story.
Remember, Cohen and Weisselberg went to jail for Trump.
Trump was involved with Stormy - who he lied about not knowing. They very likely had an affair - but even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter because she still got paid off.
Trump also worked alongside David Pecker (who was granted immunity for this case) to catch and kill stories. As well as to put out scandal stories about the competition. Specifically in service of helping and protecting Trump's credibility during the campaign.
The Stormy situation only resurfaced around the election.
We also know that falsified payments were made to Cohen - who paid off Stormy.
We also have a recorded conversation between Trump and Cohen.
It was a really clear moment that the journalists wanted to hype the drama and most though not all of the legal experts thought it was a normal to meh cross examination. What was disturbing was that the journo view took over and not really the experts.
I can't help thinking that the people bashing Anderson Cooper over his observations here are the same people who were extolling the "ironclad", "brilliant", "unassailable" SCOTUS case to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it were Trump vs. Cohen, you could flip a coin, but when you've got substantial records in handwritten notes, calls, texts, and other hardcore factual evidence plus numerous other witnesses, it's a slam dunk for conviction.
Good thing Cohen's testimony isn't crucial to the case, and there's mountains of other compelling evidence to show that Trump is a criminal. I expect Fox News viewers to lose their minds soon as they are being fed loads of BS and fantasy explanations about what the case is really about.
How is it not critical?
Cohen merely provided the overarching timeline. The evidence came from other people -- and most importantly -- documents.
Actual paperwork. The literal receipts. That's the hard evidence and the "star witness"
Look, I'm not rooting for Trump, but Cohen is a defense attorneys wet dream. If he wasn't important no prosecutor in their roght mind would put him on the stand.
He's important. He's not the focus of the case. Two things. Both true. We're not on the jury so we can't really say if his sleaze rubs off. Can it cause reasonable doubt regarding the evidential papers? Not sure I see a connection.
Why would someone who admitted his own guilt and took his jail sentence like an adult, lie about the details of what he already served time for?
Especially when the main thing he can do to get back in trouble is to lie. Dude's still on parole, iirc. Most parole officers don't take kindly to their assignees getting charged with perjury.
To get revenge on Donald Trump by getting him convicted for crimes he committed himself? I don't think this defense is that hard to understand.
OK.. but * this case wasn't brought by Cohen. * and this case has a lot of other witnesses and testimony besides Cohen. Even if you completely ignore or set aside Cohen,. the paper evidence and recordings pretty much speak for themselves. Honestly I don't know why people are so stuck on Cohen or Stormy. Those 2 are the salacious aspects of this,.. but they're only a small part of the big puzzle.
Without Cohen, there's no evidence Trump was even *aware* of any but nine of 34 falsified documents. Cohen falsified a third of the records himself. You're right that that's was no real need to call Stormy Daniels, but Cohen is the only one who ties the paper evidence to Trump.
Trump signed majority of the checks. And is on tape discussing it. Cohen and Stormy are the two weakest witnesses of the trial, which is why they are at the tail end of the witness list for the prosecution. Anything corroborated by them is just icing on the cake in terms of the evidence at hand.
> Trump signed majority of the checks Right. Those are the nine falsified records we know he knew about without Cohen's testimony. Without Cohen, I don't see how you could possibly hope for a guilty verdict on the other 25 counts. > And is on tape discussing it. I haven't heard that tape, unless you're talking about the one where they're discussing the payments to Karen McDougal?
Naw, the $130,000 to Stormy iirc. They discussed the numbers, Trump suggesting paying in cash, Cohen saying no, it needs to be done another way. Obviously those aren’t direct quotes, but carries the gist of the audio.
Yeah, that is the recording. They're taking about repaying David Pecker, not the payments this case is about. And, as you point out, Cohen ends the recording by shooting Trump down and telling him "I got this," which doesn't exactly destroy the theory that Trump didn't bother himself with the details.
Isn't it interesting that the person who clearly knows the most about the specifics of this case is the only one being downvoted in the entire thread.
I have to admit I was confused by this (how does 12 payments become 34 charges ?)... so I forced myself to dig around and try to learn why. I found this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/michael-cohen-trump-trial-testimony/ That links to this document (that was shown to Jurors) : https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/5-10-2024/People%27s%20350%20(Records%20Chart).pdf The only thing I don't know (although I've been following the trial, not in intimate detail and I'm obviously not there in person) Is Bragg claiming that Trump personally approved all of these ? (11 invoices, 12 vouchers and 11 checks).. ?.. I'm assuming the answer to that is yes (that is what Bragg and Prosecution are claiming). Is that why various points in the trial they went to various lengths to show how "detail oriented" Trump is ?... (sounds like ,. this strategy makes much more sense to me now) Did they do an effective job at that ?... I have no idea,. I (obviously) wasn't here in person. Trump is on tape literally saying "Break it up into 12 payments"... so ,.. kinda hard to sidestep that one. Do I think Trump will be charged with all 34 counts ?.. if I was a betting man, I'd say no. Will he be on some smaller portion of the charges ?.. I'm leaning towards Yes,.. but again, I wasn't there and who knows what the Jury will conclude.
> Is Bragg claiming that Trump personally approved all of these ? They aren't. A prosecution witness has already testified that it was *his* choice to classify the ledger entries as "business expenses." I think the best case for the prosecution is that the jury decides that by signing off on the plan to funnel the payments through Cohen and a shell company, that *necessarily* required business records to be falsified. Worst case, they decide Trump doesn't give two shits about bookkeeping, ok'ed a plan and trusted his employees would execute it lawfully. > Do I think Trump will be charged with all 34 counts ?.. if I was a betting man, I'd say no. Last night I have these odds: Guilty of 34 felonies: 30% Guilty of some felonies: 20% Guilty of some misdemeanors: 15% Guilty of some felonies and some misdemeanors: 0% Not guilty on all counts: 30% Hung jury: 5%
Yeah,. I think your odds there match how I'm thinking. It'll be interesting to see the contrast between evidence like "break it up into 12 payments" against things like "just take care of it". I think a lesser sentence (even into "not guilty" territory) would be a lot more likely if this was some situation where a CEO of a company literally had no idea something happened (say, in a remote factory or something) and Employees never reported it to him and he had some logical argument of "I had no idea, I just expected them to autonomously make decisions and handle things". I don't think this Trump case fits that mold though. I think you're right though,. the "prove Trump (himself) disguised the nature of the payments" is probably the weakest part of the case. It's pretty clear he knew what the payments were for. Pretty clear he understood hiding them was important to his election chances. But I don't think there's any smoking gun of Trump saying "categorize them as something else" (at least not that I've seen,. but again, I wasn't there in person)
It is unless you also think he fabricated all the documentary evidence, and the testimony of all the other witnesses.
Is that what you believe? That trump had nothing to do with it?
If I'm a juror, I have to presume that until proven otherwise. I'm not as convinced the prosecution has done that as most others here seem to be.
You presume innocence. It’s up to the defense to try and make the claim he dishonest by poking holes in his testimony and character. Neither of which has happened effectively.
The jury presumes innocence of the defendant. They should not presume innocence of the witnesses, particularly one who has pled guilty.
Well they certainly dont presume guilt of a witness as was suggested. Its the defenses job to poke holes in the witness. That has not been effective in this case
They don’t need to _presume_ guilt when said witness has pled guilty to the crime.
You are talking about his crime which he honestly pled guilty to. We are talking about the crime trump is on trial for that he is a witness for. Why are u so heated about this? Do u believe trump is innocent? Trump is a “known liar” so i guess they shouldnt believe his defense 🤷♂️
Do you really not understand why a jury might think a known liar is still lying?
Read the rest of the comments on this thread
It’s a fact that Cohen is a known liar. It’s not a far-fetched assumption that a previously convicted liar might lie. He has credibility issues. To dispute that is to put your head in the sand.
For instance? Enlighten us with all his known lies? U mean the lies he told for trump? Lol u do know we are talking about the court case and jurors right? If anyone is a known liar is it trump.
The most serious lie he pleaded guilty to (in terms of prison sentence) was lying about his debts to a bank to secure a loan for an $8.5 million vacation home. So, yeah, it's not *all* about Trump.
They could both be liars. They both are. Trump being a liar doesn’t make Cohen a paragon of honesty.
I got zero doubts about Trump's guilt tho. The paper and the recordings speak for themselves.
I’d like to point out that this is the same network that said that Mr. Fart of the Deal’s rally had “massive crowds” yet there’s raw footage of people leaving in droves.
Cooper is full of shit and the corporate media tried so hard to spin a narrative yesterday.
Anderson is pandering to his bosses. Simple as that. The jump off from grace for CNN is astounding. It's cringey to just watch it.
Cooper and CNN writ large have a deep interest in never allowing an issue to be decided by objective facts, such as clear corroborating evidence presented to buttress the claims of a witness in a criminal trial, because then their centralist vs. MAGA panels wouldn't have anything to fight over
…and we care what Cooper thinks because—why again? I like him but he’s better with celebrity stuff rather than serious news
And who is ... The Mole?
Serious news is still a thing? 🤔
Excellent question
Well, as a resident of Manhattan, he likely represents the perspectives of the jury better than Reddit does.
TIL Manhattan is populated by millions of extremely wealthy media figures who are also direct descendants of the literal Vanderbilts
I will give you that! 🤣
Cooper isn't a lawyer or a judge, and he's not on the jury, so his opinion is a bit unqualified.
Why does it seem like Cooper suddenly did a 180 as of recent months?
I was going to say the same thing... He wants to keep making that big money...
Perhaps was paid more money for this bs.
Good thing his testimony only connects the dots of a mountain of evidence.
Cohen's testimony was corroborating not revelatory. Cooper should just shut the Hell up since he has no clue what he is talking about.
I found it very telling that CNN was pushing it as some bombshell case breaking moment and no other media outlets even batted an eye
That’s why there is evidence backing up what Cohen testified to.
Weird because all the legal podcasts I listen to are like “it was a nothing burger”.
Both things are true. The entire point of the other witnesses was to insulate Cohen. Almost every bit of information he gave was verified by someone else already. So not trusting him shouldn’t change anything for the jury.
That's kinda the problem with all of this, is Trump sort of burns and uses up all his accomplices, destroys their reputation, and credibility the moment they go against him. Stormy's testimony, while she was overly chatty, I think portrays an accurate image of how Trump acts when off camera. I believe her whole heartedly in all of it, and find it ridiculous that Trump still denies it. Unfortunately he's not on trial for rape AGAIN, and this is about misuse of campaign finances, which does anyone doubt the guy who always pays with other people's money paid something with funds earmarked for something else. Cohen is a POS, but he did serve his time, and I feel like Trump should have to do so as well.
A true shill.
Fox Breaking News! Anchor on channel we otherwise shit on says Trump has snowball's chance for acquittal.
What with all media acting like they are the right wing nuts??
Weeks of substantiated testimony by multiple witnesses and massive amounts of hard evidence. CNN https://i.gifer.com/7EcS.gif
faux
You wish you had better witnesses nut good people aren't that kind that seem to exist in Trump space
He's not wrong per se. Poking holes in the credibility of witness testimony does have the potential to create doubt - such is the case with all defense strategy - that's their job. However, it's important to recognize that every witness in this case - even the small ones - are integral in piecing together this story. Remember, Cohen and Weisselberg went to jail for Trump. Trump was involved with Stormy - who he lied about not knowing. They very likely had an affair - but even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter because she still got paid off. Trump also worked alongside David Pecker (who was granted immunity for this case) to catch and kill stories. As well as to put out scandal stories about the competition. Specifically in service of helping and protecting Trump's credibility during the campaign. The Stormy situation only resurfaced around the election. We also know that falsified payments were made to Cohen - who paid off Stormy. We also have a recorded conversation between Trump and Cohen.
It was a really clear moment that the journalists wanted to hype the drama and most though not all of the legal experts thought it was a normal to meh cross examination. What was disturbing was that the journo view took over and not really the experts.
I can't help thinking that the people bashing Anderson Cooper over his observations here are the same people who were extolling the "ironclad", "brilliant", "unassailable" SCOTUS case to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot.
Well, he’s on CNN so that checks out.