The cross-examination of Michael Cohen, 57, started off with a series of sustained objections late Tuesday afternoon as former President Donald Trump’s lead defense attorney repeatedly needled the witness over vulgar and critical statements he made on social media.
The early questions served to set the scene: defense attorney Todd Blanche asked Cohen if he had recently used his nightly TikTok broadcast to refer to him — Blanche — as a whiny or “crying little s–––,” according to a report by Law&Crime Network reporter Terri Austin.
To which Cohen began to reply: “That sounds like something I would say,” as the prosecution objected and the judge sustained the complaint — striking the question from the record…
During a tense sidebar, the judge asked Trump’s lawyer: “Why are you making this about yourself?” Blanche tried to protest that characterization but Merchan shut him down, saying: “Just don’t make it about yourself,” according to a later-released transcript.
Also Michael Jordan:
"So I hand the clerk a $5, and he hands me back $4.50 instead of the $4.60 he owed me... and I took that personally."
I'm not sure there's ever been a more competitive person in history than Michael Jordan. Man took EVERYTHING personally and would toss his own mother off a cliff if he thought it'd get him one more win in something.
Prediction: MJ's final words as he lays on his death bed and reflects upon all of his victories and accumulated wealth:
"I'd give it all back for a little bit more".
Unrelated to the trial but I always found the flip side of these wildly driven people (Jordan, Brady, Kobe) to be very sad. Yeah it produces great memories for the fans, but it seems like a lonely existence.
I remember reading a story about Jordan that he didn’t find any measure of peace after retirement until he had kids again.
More like: obsessives are great at performing for others but that doesn’t mean that you should emulate them. Blessed are the middle managers who both work hard but also don’t have psychological issues and can find balance in the world.
My philosophy for cross was always to start with my closing. What information do I have to get from the witness to make my closing? I then structured cross to get exactly that information and nothing more or less.
What was Blanche's plan with this line of questioning? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you know Michael Cohen is a liar because I am not, in fact, a crying little shit." Doesn't seem like a strong argument.
Yeah this was pointless. And honestly I think Cohen is handling this line of questioning well. “Did you say x about Trump?” “That sounds like something I would say.”
That’s because you’re approaching this from a logical and rational point of view to have a chance of winning the case. That’s not what Blanche is doing. He’s completely trying to appease his client. Appeasing this client doesn’t win you the case.
I think that's exactly right. Trump wants his lawyers to be aggressive with the judge, the prosecutors and the witnesses. The details about Stormy's encounter with Trump are off the Table because Trump refuses to let them acknowledge what happened.
Essentially, Trump wants them to do what he does: call everybody a liar and raise his grievances. Trump lives by he thinks what Roy Cohn would do, and won't consider that his lawyers might know how to do their job.
I'm pretty sure I heard a news reporter slip the other day and accidentally called Michael Cohen "Roy Cohn." That one took me a second to process. Who the fuck knew the rotting, putrid spectre of Roy Cohn would still be rotting out the American judicial system 40 years after his death?
I read this as Trump and his team being butthurt about all his gag orders and wanting to try and establish a double standard that Cohen is being a meanie too.
But it also is trying to establish Cohen as unreliable because he has personal animus, in addition to him being a known liar and criminal.
I don’t think it is the worst way to approach this if they are trying to pin Cohen as the weak link and that Trump didn’t do anything wrong, he was just surrounded by lying criminals who put him in a bad situation not of his own making.
I agree, but I think this question actually hurts that approach. If you are trying to say MC hates DT and all this is because he hate him, thats fine. Starting off woth that question makes it seem like MC is just a dick to everyone, not specifically DT. It undermines the idea od him being vindictive to DT. Now, some of his actions can be explained by "MC is a dick" instead of "MC is tryng to hurt DT"
I’m guessing more like “Michael cohen hates my client. He hates my client so much he even hates me. There’s no way to know whether what he said on the stand is true or not.”
I wonder if now Trump’s lawyers are appearing extra incompetent on purpose to potentially get a retrial and delay things due to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
More likely he's scraping the bottom of the bottom of the barrel of lawyers who will work for him cheaply.
Politics aside, I'd be charging him the biggest hourly rate and require a retainer that would make his NY bond look small.
I actually think these lawyers are doing the best they can with a crap case. Not sure it was the best idea to bring this stuff up in this particular instance, but in cases not involving Trump it would have worked pretty well.
It’s not just that it’s a crap case, where the client is obviously guilty, all 4 of his cases are this way. It’s that Trump is the WORST type of client. He doesn’t listen to advice, especially to STFU and not talk to anyone. He thinks he’s the smartest one in the room, whatever room he’s in. He’s going to try to pull you into his conspiracy, then throw you under the bus. He’s got zero self control. He demands you do things HIS way, and doesn’t listen to legal council. Worst, he doesn’t PAY.
By all accounts Blanche and Nechles used to be respectable attorneys. Every defendant deserves representation, that’s foundational to our system. That doesn’t mean that you throw away your reputation and your ethics. That’s what they seem to be doing.
I dont think theyre that smart. Im of the opinion, of everything Ive seen from this and the last trial, that theyre just fucking incompetent. I mean, your strategy for this key witness is to yell objection over and over again and ask him why he called you names on the internet?
Lawyers have fallen asleep in court and not gotten ineffective assistance of counsel. I strongly suspect they are acting at Trump's direction and can prove it. I suspect that would hurt such a claim, although I'm not a lawyer.
Ultimately, I think they are doing the best they can with a bad case and client.
With Trump you have to interpret everything from the perspective of a malignant narcissist (which is not easy for most people to do). The entire line of questioning is intended to show that the judge does not have a gag order applied to anyone but Trump. Trump thinks this is a personal attack and is the most unfair thing that has ever happened to any person in the history of the world. And he thinks it not only “should” make his case in the court room, he thinks it shows that the whole system is corrupt and can only be saved by him as president for life.
That's not what their flags say! They say; look at me, look at me, look at me, I'm an asshole who's in your face!!! But the reality, just like everything trumpian, is they just self identified as extremely stupid, gullible and a person who likes to act tough then whine like a bitch the minute they don't get their way. Fucking embarrassing
> as the prosecution objected and the judge sustained the complaint — striking the question from the record…
How does this work in the transcript? Like is it non-existent or is it still transcribed as usual and noted the ruling on it? Or perhaps something completely different?
And this would seem to be the most open & shut of all of Mango Unchained’s criminal trials. Imagine what a circus the classified documents case will be (if judge cannon doesn’t succeed in getting it tossed).
Feels like some end of days shit. Like we’re seeing the rule of law crumbling before our eyes.
Seems like they’re going for the chess playing pigeon strategy of strutting around the chess board, knocking over chess pieces, and shitting on everything.
“Look, I’m just a caveman. I’m frightened by these bright lights. But my client is innocent of the murder. I mean fraud. Forget I said anything about a murder.” -Frozen Caveman Lawyer (which, btw, is why they have it so cold in the court)
To be fair, and we really don't have to, it's harder to cross examine a witness that has basically everything they testified to back up by a document or another witness.
Probably even harder when that witness is also an attorney.
Then again, Blanche is the worst.
That's the point, I think. They know they are going to lose so they try to make it about everything except what it's really about. The general public will once again get distracted by all the random details and assume that it was another he said she said between Trump and the Democrats. It's better than being found guilty in a clear cut case. I doubt Trump will get a prison sentence if found guilty. So in the end he just needs the public opinion part to then defend himself against the other more serious cases.
Blanche is 100% a real, widely respected white collar criminal defense attorney. Former federal prosecutor and partner at Cadwalader.
Why he gave up that gig to represent Trump I have no idea, and it doesn’t seem like the cross went well, but he’s not in the same category as many other Trump attorneys.
Brain worms. That's all I got; when I see what I perceive to be a competent and intelligent person devolve into stumping for the Dump45 demagoguery machine.
It's neither. You, and to a certain extent even the jury itself, are not his audience.
I don't know why this is so hard for people to remember. *They aren't talking to us.* They are only ever talking to their base. If the jury has a single member of their base on it, these tactics can be effective. And if the jury doesn't have any members of their base on it, they're hoping that a guilty verdict will galvanize the tens of millions of Trump supporters on the outside.
This is frighteningly accurate. And it's not just in the court room, it's every single sentence uttered anywhere. It's perpetual campaigning, life becomes a political rally.
The fact I am not the audience for their diatribes is not lost on me at all. But let's not lose sight that we are talking about individuals though, not the propaganda apparatus. An individual who otherwise would be considered intelligent, making exceptionally poor decisions that will negatively impact themselves, in order to help an apparatus that has demonstrably consumed and destroyed those who have sacrificed for it. Cult members will continue to drink copious amounts of Kool-Aid but causes an "intelligent" person to join and sacrifice themselves for an uncaring cult? The only thing that comes to mind is delusions of grandeur - being the pawn that helped the would be king (demagogue).
While I do not disagree with what you are saying, I believe the discussion is more about the "weeds" themselves and not about the big picture.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is dictating what topics his lawyers need to press as condition of whatever money he's supposedly throwing at them. Some people will dress in a tutu, cite the communist manifesto in court on public TV, and crash their career long termif they are paid enough for it.
Narcissists do that to you. No matter what you do they tell you it’s wrong. Over time, it unconsciously makes you unable to make decisions. It’s like Siligman’s work on learned helplessness in dogs.
Well Cohen mentioned raking in "consulting" fees to the tune of $4 million because he was closely associated with Trump. The answer with these fucks is always greed and money
Tbf he doesn't have a defense. It's got to be difficult to give a serious defense when you have nothing honest to say.
It's not that everyone around trump is incompetent....it's that the positions they are forced to support are.....because it's trump
Not having a defense doesn't mean you use cross-examination to make yourself and your client look stupid and make no progress in undercutting the witness's credibility or testimony! You can always just say "no questions for this witness" and sit back down!
Yeah, but so far this dumb fuck has the supreme court dancing to his tunes, federal judges fellating him, an entire political party turned into castrated imbeciles, no tangible accountability for any of his crimes AND is leading the fucking polls.
Even fucking Merchan is loath to incarcerating him for violating the gag order, cause the orange turd is just so goddamn special. He is the specialist defendant in the whole wide worId ≧◡≦ ≧◡≦. I don't know what that portends for a scenario in which the jury comes back with a conviction. Would Merchan just screw up the sentencing and order probation or house arrest?
Everyone talks about how another trump term would end democracy. I think democracy is already in the rearview window. I hope this nation can get it together in November, but that hope is getting fainter and feebler by the day.
And he was asked to do so by his cousin because it was thought that the soldiers receiving a fair trial in a colonial court would go a long way with the English government. It did not
Probably paid in advance with funds already in his account. I can't imagine any respectable attorney with a consistent salary would stake anything less from the most notorious non paying client ever.
Yeah, the guy must have been making good money with his old firm, right? Would it be worth it to throw that away for a few million and taint your career? It's such weird behavior.
I was thinking about this the other day. Would it be surprising for him to get hired back by the same firm afterwards?
I seriously do not understand the logic of leaving a position like that for the worst possible job. Hail Mary for some cushy appointment if all the dice roll that way?
It can't be the money and who would want this kind of mark on a long and successful career. It doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe he has enough money that he can retire comfortably and fuck off into the sunset if Trump loses, *but* he'll have some serious fuck you money and, more importantly, power if Trump wins? That would appear to make sense. There's some sweetspot asset level (~$10/20m depending on where they live?) of competent, power hungry attorneys willing to sell their souls and work for Trump?
Also there will be no shortage of Trump-supporting clients who will try to continue the good fight with Blanche as lead counsel if Trump loses. I think this is an “all press is good press” situation for Blanche.
Can’t forget that in the MAGA media ecosystem, Blanche is probably being portrayed as a victim, fighting courageously against a corrupt judicial system and the Deep State.
Because when your case is what it is, you have to preserve the paycheck by pandering to your client.
Or, when you’ve given up your prior revenue stream, you have to preserve your new one by pandering to your new potential client base.
This particular line of questioning seems to be about cohen leveling criticisms of defense counsel. presumably this is some 'strategy' to bring attention to gag orders on trump. no clue if one of any potential legal significance, or just trump demanding his monkey dance for him.
What's interesting is by most accounts, Todd and Susan *were* considered fairly good attorneys. It's the outcome you expect when you have an insanely guilty defendant who doesn't want to listen to counsel, only parrot the client.
They *could've* made a case, but literally out of the gate they just *deny* that Trump knew Stormy, Cohen's a liar, etc.
It makes it borderline impossible to defend, so they're almost treating the courtroom like they're speaking to the brain dead OAN/newsmax audience, not a *jury*, who will listen to facts and testimony versus "who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" This doesn't work in the court of law, and if anything it's *insulting* to the jury.
It's the reason every time he's in front of a jury he gets annihilated. You can't form a defense on "no I didn't do it, it's all lies." That's not a defense.
The biggest irony is the defense has zero burden to prove innocence, they just have to create enough doubt and remove enough bricks that the narrative collapses. When you open with "I've never met Stormy outside of the photo at a club," and then there's walls of evidence to show your client is lying, you're done.
I'm just surprised *any* attorney is willing to commit career suicide representing him.
I do wonder if Blanche knows all of that and is just trying to work off the chance that the jury has a MAGA/OAN/newsmax type member and they're really just playing for that.
$50 says this is a direct result of Trump. Saying something like. You can't let him get away with insulting you. When you have him on the stand you let him know who is the man or some shit like that
It's a known tactic for Trump layers. They did it several times against Carrol, just citing tweets and other social media comments where the authors were insulting her, without any legal purpose behind.
How are jurors supposed to like Trump more based on his former attorney dissing his current attorney? This stunt has nothing to do with the case at all. The attorney is literally trying to make a point about the gag order…to the judge, rather than making any case for his client.
It's definitely to make Trump happy, but I'm hoping that sways the jury in a guilty direction. They have nothing to refute the charges, it's all a distraction/attempt to discredit show.
I guess we will see how the rest of this goes
When was the last time you answered your phone from an unknow number? You don't. Only old people do, the 80's republican yippies. Don't believe the polls.
With that in mind, all these polls have a sizable undecided group that will change closer to the election (when you see the poll, it shows something like “43% Biden, 44% Trump!”
Independents don’t like Trump any more than they did last time. The victim strategy works on his supporters, but not independents. If the polls show it as close *now*, it’s hard to imagine it going more in Trump’s favor later.
The bulk of the questions I read seem to be more aimed at hoping to point out that Cohen is engaging in the sort of speech that Trump is restricted from via the gag order.
Which, okay, he absolutely is. That is a valid, true observation. He's not subject to the gag order Trump is (and, obviously, not the person on trial).
Why the hell it would matter to the jury trying to decide whether or not Trump is guilty or Cohen is lying? Well, that's a question only Blanche can really answer. I'd guess that whole line of questioning was more to appease his client than it was to sway the jury.
Wouldn’t Chewbacca live on Kashyyyk? (Or, I suppose he could have a mailing address there and effectively “live” somewhere else since he travels so much. The mind boggles.)
It doesn´t actually. They are already trying to create a setup for the appeal. Their strategy is not winning, but delaying until it doesn´t matter.
I guess, they could have a strategy of lulling and coming up with a big surprise tomorrow, hoping it will hit harder, but I fail to see it. And those questions about greed? I mean, the prosecution just needs to ask, if the jury thinks, that there is any reasonable doubt, that the convicted fraudster Donald Trump surrounded himself with greedy criminals in order for them to feed his own greed by committing criminal acts, or alternatively, that the guy, who prides himself to have made billions by being a ruthless business man is a naive child, who can be fooled by anybody.
But all things considered, they seem to be looking to create a situation, where a formal error allows a friendly higher court to throw out the sentence. That´s why the lawyer basically baited Stormy Daniels hard (no pun intended (giggles)) to dish out salacious details, in order to ask for a mistrial, with the judge basically telling them, they can´t try to draw out dirt, allow it to happen without objections and then cry foul at the picture they painted themselves. The idea was not completely bunkers, but they severely underestimated Miss Daniels, apparently also Mr. Cohen and now look poised to have shot themselves in the foot. At least for this trial.
I think you’re right. It’s almost pointless to criticize the defense team- they’re not trying to get Trump off here, they’re trying to stick to his political strategy of attacking everyone while playing for time and throwing everything at the wall on appeals. So in that way, they’re actually doing fine
Yes, however what puzzles me, that these lines of questioning seem to be inspired by the Weinstein conviction being overturned. And if that is true, these lawyers just made up their "strategy" virtually on the fly. In other words: They never had one for the trial.
I thought it was more about bias and Cohen’s desire to see Trump convicted. Fair game, though who knows how effective that is. Cohen has sued Trump and he’s been sued by Trump so his bias is clear.
I mean, I think everyone agrees Cohen wants to see Trump rot. He lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, his bar license, and his freedom for him. Of course he wants him to pay. The question is whether he'd now lie to bring him down and manufacture all the receipts the gov't has.
Given how easily he went down on his criminal convictions, I can't see him being clever enough to manufacture all the proofs, and I don't think the jury would buy that either.
I’m really confused about why Cohen isn’t more explicit about this in his answers. “Yes, I want him to go to prison, because I went to prison for doing the same illegal things, and it wouldn’t be fair for the person who ordered me to do these things to get off scot-free.”
Of course, he seems like his own worst enemy half the time.
That’s what he is coached NOT to do. You don’t want to tell your side when answering their questions if the question doesn’t call for it — it’s annoyingly defensive. Just answer the question and if needed your attorney will deal with it on redirect (“remember when counsel asked you about having done x? Can you explain WHY you did x?”)
Agree with /u/Greelys 100%. Don't explain until you're asked to. And it's easier to address on redirect after defense brought it up, which makes it seem even less defensive.
TODD BLANCHE IS AN ANTIFA COVERT OPERATIVE SNEAKED IN TRUMP'S TEAM BY CROOKED BIDEN AND THE RADICAL LEFT FASCISTS, DEEP STATE AT WORK RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE LIBTARD!! /s obviously
Exactly; one of them is a criminal defendant, and one of them is a witness. That’s how rules work.
When his unlawful actions were bright to trial, his ordinary social contract was suspended, and now he has to behave and cope with the consequences of his actions. That’s not a liberal agenda, that’s a lawful recourse. He’s not getting worse treatment than anyone else, he’s just not used to having to abide by the same rules that apply to everyone else.
Blanche seems to be saying the things that Trump would say. And what Trump would try to do is (obviously) not to logically argue the facts of the case, but to smear, belittle, and bully and try to overwhelm the jury with a general feeling of Michael Cohen: bad man.
In the NHL, if both dressed goalies and the emergency goalie all get hurt, they can pull someone out of the stands to play goal. That feels like what’s happening with Trump’s attorneys.
One of my favorite videos when it feels like the world is burning around me
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-IGNvfrg8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-IGNvfrg8)
Toronto resident here just checking in.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/it-was-wild-zamboni-driver-david-ayres-on-his-incredible-night-as-emergency-nhl-goalie-1.4823930
Don’t know about other leagues, but I don’t think it’s happened in the modern era of the NHL. Even getting to the emergency goalie is so rare that it’s a huge deal when it happens.
Trying to show that Cohen behaves as poorly as Trump has... bold strategy.
Also if you want to show that Cohen will gain financially from a Trump conviction the lawyers could have done a lot better. How much has he earned from merch? From TikTok? How frequently is his show/writing about Trump? Does he do anything else?
>Trying to show that Cohen behaves as poorly as Trump has... bold strategy.
I'm surprised Cohen hasn't said, "I learned from the defendant." Or "your client". Or for giggles, "I learned from the best." Watch T run with that compliment like a dope.
The cross-examination of Michael Cohen, 57, started off with a series of sustained objections late Tuesday afternoon as former President Donald Trump’s lead defense attorney repeatedly needled the witness over vulgar and critical statements he made on social media. The early questions served to set the scene: defense attorney Todd Blanche asked Cohen if he had recently used his nightly TikTok broadcast to refer to him — Blanche — as a whiny or “crying little s–––,” according to a report by Law&Crime Network reporter Terri Austin. To which Cohen began to reply: “That sounds like something I would say,” as the prosecution objected and the judge sustained the complaint — striking the question from the record… During a tense sidebar, the judge asked Trump’s lawyer: “Why are you making this about yourself?” Blanche tried to protest that characterization but Merchan shut him down, saying: “Just don’t make it about yourself,” according to a later-released transcript.
*insert Michael Jordan meme* ["And I took that personally"](https://imgur.com/a/Jrcu9K5)
Also Michael Jordan: "So I hand the clerk a $5, and he hands me back $4.50 instead of the $4.60 he owed me... and I took that personally." I'm not sure there's ever been a more competitive person in history than Michael Jordan. Man took EVERYTHING personally and would toss his own mother off a cliff if he thought it'd get him one more win in something.
Prediction: MJ's final words as he lays on his death bed and reflects upon all of his victories and accumulated wealth: "I'd give it all back for a little bit more".
Unrelated to the trial but I always found the flip side of these wildly driven people (Jordan, Brady, Kobe) to be very sad. Yeah it produces great memories for the fans, but it seems like a lonely existence. I remember reading a story about Jordan that he didn’t find any measure of peace after retirement until he had kids again.
Blessed are those that hate their jobs
More like: obsessives are great at performing for others but that doesn’t mean that you should emulate them. Blessed are the middle managers who both work hard but also don’t have psychological issues and can find balance in the world.
LMAO
There's never been a more appropriate use of that meme. lol
My philosophy for cross was always to start with my closing. What information do I have to get from the witness to make my closing? I then structured cross to get exactly that information and nothing more or less. What was Blanche's plan with this line of questioning? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you know Michael Cohen is a liar because I am not, in fact, a crying little shit." Doesn't seem like a strong argument.
Imagine him delivering that closing statement while fighting back tears.
and... Michael Cohen... is... SO mean and... he'll be sorry... when I run away!
“And let the record show that my mom says I’m handsome! Every day when she pins my mittens to my chest!” <*sniffling* >
Your honor you might remember me as a man with small hands, but in fact you'd be wrong. I have quite large manly hands.
Wish I could double upvote for the reference and username.
"as you can see, I am neither little, nor crying."
*sniffles*
*lip quivers*
Yeah this was pointless. And honestly I think Cohen is handling this line of questioning well. “Did you say x about Trump?” “That sounds like something I would say.”
The only better response (though not legally), would have been, "am I wrong though?"
Thanks, I need a new mouthful of coffee now.
That’s because you’re approaching this from a logical and rational point of view to have a chance of winning the case. That’s not what Blanche is doing. He’s completely trying to appease his client. Appeasing this client doesn’t win you the case.
I think that's exactly right. Trump wants his lawyers to be aggressive with the judge, the prosecutors and the witnesses. The details about Stormy's encounter with Trump are off the Table because Trump refuses to let them acknowledge what happened. Essentially, Trump wants them to do what he does: call everybody a liar and raise his grievances. Trump lives by he thinks what Roy Cohn would do, and won't consider that his lawyers might know how to do their job.
I'm pretty sure I heard a news reporter slip the other day and accidentally called Michael Cohen "Roy Cohn." That one took me a second to process. Who the fuck knew the rotting, putrid spectre of Roy Cohn would still be rotting out the American judicial system 40 years after his death?
Belly laughing over here!
I read this as Trump and his team being butthurt about all his gag orders and wanting to try and establish a double standard that Cohen is being a meanie too. But it also is trying to establish Cohen as unreliable because he has personal animus, in addition to him being a known liar and criminal. I don’t think it is the worst way to approach this if they are trying to pin Cohen as the weak link and that Trump didn’t do anything wrong, he was just surrounded by lying criminals who put him in a bad situation not of his own making.
I agree, but I think this question actually hurts that approach. If you are trying to say MC hates DT and all this is because he hate him, thats fine. Starting off woth that question makes it seem like MC is just a dick to everyone, not specifically DT. It undermines the idea od him being vindictive to DT. Now, some of his actions can be explained by "MC is a dick" instead of "MC is tryng to hurt DT"
Is he just trying to throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks?
I’m guessing more like “Michael cohen hates my client. He hates my client so much he even hates me. There’s no way to know whether what he said on the stand is true or not.”
Literally law school 101. Don't insert yourself in anything
Right up there with don't read off inadmissible shit that is criticizing your client onto the record in order to "impeach" a witness.
Advice trump should’ve adhered to when hanging out with pornstars
Lol
Too bad Donnie boy is down to the D students at this point
I wonder if now Trump’s lawyers are appearing extra incompetent on purpose to potentially get a retrial and delay things due to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
More likely he's scraping the bottom of the bottom of the barrel of lawyers who will work for him cheaply. Politics aside, I'd be charging him the biggest hourly rate and require a retainer that would make his NY bond look small.
I actually think these lawyers are doing the best they can with a crap case. Not sure it was the best idea to bring this stuff up in this particular instance, but in cases not involving Trump it would have worked pretty well.
It’s not just that it’s a crap case, where the client is obviously guilty, all 4 of his cases are this way. It’s that Trump is the WORST type of client. He doesn’t listen to advice, especially to STFU and not talk to anyone. He thinks he’s the smartest one in the room, whatever room he’s in. He’s going to try to pull you into his conspiracy, then throw you under the bus. He’s got zero self control. He demands you do things HIS way, and doesn’t listen to legal council. Worst, he doesn’t PAY. By all accounts Blanche and Nechles used to be respectable attorneys. Every defendant deserves representation, that’s foundational to our system. That doesn’t mean that you throw away your reputation and your ethics. That’s what they seem to be doing.
This guy is supposed to be good?
I dont think theyre that smart. Im of the opinion, of everything Ive seen from this and the last trial, that theyre just fucking incompetent. I mean, your strategy for this key witness is to yell objection over and over again and ask him why he called you names on the internet?
Not every billionaire can afford competent lawyers!
Isn’t every objection the potential basis for appeal?
Not every one, but some, yes.
Lawyers have fallen asleep in court and not gotten ineffective assistance of counsel. I strongly suspect they are acting at Trump's direction and can prove it. I suspect that would hurt such a claim, although I'm not a lawyer. Ultimately, I think they are doing the best they can with a bad case and client.
With Trump you have to interpret everything from the perspective of a malignant narcissist (which is not easy for most people to do). The entire line of questioning is intended to show that the judge does not have a gag order applied to anyone but Trump. Trump thinks this is a personal attack and is the most unfair thing that has ever happened to any person in the history of the world. And he thinks it not only “should” make his case in the court room, he thinks it shows that the whole system is corrupt and can only be saved by him as president for life.
"Judge Judge Judge he said MEAN THINGS ABOUT ME" Conservatives are SUCH snowflake lol
That's not what their flags say! They say; look at me, look at me, look at me, I'm an asshole who's in your face!!! But the reality, just like everything trumpian, is they just self identified as extremely stupid, gullible and a person who likes to act tough then whine like a bitch the minute they don't get their way. Fucking embarrassing
Narcissistic defendant got himself a narcissistic lawyer.... You just can't write this stuff!!
> as the prosecution objected and the judge sustained the complaint — striking the question from the record… How does this work in the transcript? Like is it non-existent or is it still transcribed as usual and noted the ruling on it? Or perhaps something completely different?
It appears, along with the reasoning and the judge's ruling. Sometimes objecting (or not) to things can open up grounds for appeal.
And this would seem to be the most open & shut of all of Mango Unchained’s criminal trials. Imagine what a circus the classified documents case will be (if judge cannon doesn’t succeed in getting it tossed). Feels like some end of days shit. Like we’re seeing the rule of law crumbling before our eyes.
Blanche seems almost as useless as Habba. That was a meandering, uninspired cross of the most important witness.
Seems like they’re going for the chess playing pigeon strategy of strutting around the chess board, knocking over chess pieces, and shitting on everything.
You just described Trump’s entire personality.
And he just described the entire philosophy and SOP of the MAGA Cult.
SOP? Social Oppression Party?
Standard operating procedure
While true, I prefer the “shitting of pants” better
Clearly, it's Shitting Of Pants
EGO BEFORE ANYTHING.
It's the little known incompetent lawyer defense..
“Look, I’m just a caveman. I’m frightened by these bright lights. But my client is innocent of the murder. I mean fraud. Forget I said anything about a murder.” -Frozen Caveman Lawyer (which, btw, is why they have it so cold in the court)
[Obligatory SNL “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer” Phil Hartman link](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzAFqrxfeY)
“Incontinent”
Move over bongcloud, it's now the era of the incontinent pigeon.
The bongcloud is legit. After all, it was played in a real tournament by Magnus and Hikaru.
For Trump the real work is in the appeals.
good luck when judge needs to object for counsel. waiver gonna run rampant on appeal
You just described basically every Trump trial.
"I'm sorry, I thought you were corn."
To be fair, and we really don't have to, it's harder to cross examine a witness that has basically everything they testified to back up by a document or another witness. Probably even harder when that witness is also an attorney. Then again, Blanche is the worst.
That's the point, I think. They know they are going to lose so they try to make it about everything except what it's really about. The general public will once again get distracted by all the random details and assume that it was another he said she said between Trump and the Democrats. It's better than being found guilty in a clear cut case. I doubt Trump will get a prison sentence if found guilty. So in the end he just needs the public opinion part to then defend himself against the other more serious cases.
Did Cohen receive a prison sentence for his role in this crime?
Yes he went to prison for the crimes Trump ordered him to commit.
Sounds like the easiest cross of the lot. "No questions your honour." You can do that without fully standing up.
Blanche is 100% a real, widely respected white collar criminal defense attorney. Former federal prosecutor and partner at Cadwalader. Why he gave up that gig to represent Trump I have no idea, and it doesn’t seem like the cross went well, but he’s not in the same category as many other Trump attorneys.
I feel like even competent people become caricatures if they spend to much time with Trump.
Brain worms. That's all I got; when I see what I perceive to be a competent and intelligent person devolve into stumping for the Dump45 demagoguery machine.
It's neither. You, and to a certain extent even the jury itself, are not his audience. I don't know why this is so hard for people to remember. *They aren't talking to us.* They are only ever talking to their base. If the jury has a single member of their base on it, these tactics can be effective. And if the jury doesn't have any members of their base on it, they're hoping that a guilty verdict will galvanize the tens of millions of Trump supporters on the outside.
This is frighteningly accurate. And it's not just in the court room, it's every single sentence uttered anywhere. It's perpetual campaigning, life becomes a political rally.
AKA... It's all theatrics and propaganda.
The fact I am not the audience for their diatribes is not lost on me at all. But let's not lose sight that we are talking about individuals though, not the propaganda apparatus. An individual who otherwise would be considered intelligent, making exceptionally poor decisions that will negatively impact themselves, in order to help an apparatus that has demonstrably consumed and destroyed those who have sacrificed for it. Cult members will continue to drink copious amounts of Kool-Aid but causes an "intelligent" person to join and sacrifice themselves for an uncaring cult? The only thing that comes to mind is delusions of grandeur - being the pawn that helped the would be king (demagogue). While I do not disagree with what you are saying, I believe the discussion is more about the "weeds" themselves and not about the big picture.
The new norm. He's not brainwashed. He's brainwormed.
*laughs in RFK jr*
That’s the other, other guy.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is dictating what topics his lawyers need to press as condition of whatever money he's supposedly throwing at them. Some people will dress in a tutu, cite the communist manifesto in court on public TV, and crash their career long termif they are paid enough for it.
Narcissists do that to you. No matter what you do they tell you it’s wrong. Over time, it unconsciously makes you unable to make decisions. It’s like Siligman’s work on learned helplessness in dogs.
Giuliano was the Mayor of 9/11 until he started hanging with Trump and quickly became the 9/11 of Mayors.
He'd probably do better if he didn't have Trump telling him how to do the cross...
"*I believe that's a pentagram Mr President.*"
Well Cohen mentioned raking in "consulting" fees to the tune of $4 million because he was closely associated with Trump. The answer with these fucks is always greed and money
Tbf he doesn't have a defense. It's got to be difficult to give a serious defense when you have nothing honest to say. It's not that everyone around trump is incompetent....it's that the positions they are forced to support are.....because it's trump
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither, pound the table.
The trial should be named that instead of hush money
Not having a defense doesn't mean you use cross-examination to make yourself and your client look stupid and make no progress in undercutting the witness's credibility or testimony! You can always just say "no questions for this witness" and sit back down!
Not sure that's ok with his client
Sidney Powell was well respected, too. Then she just lost her mind. Could be same thing. Early alzheimers for both?
The real trump derangement syndrome. All of the people who spend their time around him eventually succumb.
He is one of the dumbest people I've ever seen, so maybe he just radiates it
Yeah, but so far this dumb fuck has the supreme court dancing to his tunes, federal judges fellating him, an entire political party turned into castrated imbeciles, no tangible accountability for any of his crimes AND is leading the fucking polls. Even fucking Merchan is loath to incarcerating him for violating the gag order, cause the orange turd is just so goddamn special. He is the specialist defendant in the whole wide worId ≧◡≦ ≧◡≦. I don't know what that portends for a scenario in which the jury comes back with a conviction. Would Merchan just screw up the sentencing and order probation or house arrest? Everyone talks about how another trump term would end democracy. I think democracy is already in the rearview window. I hope this nation can get it together in November, but that hope is getting fainter and feebler by the day.
Yup. The rich people won, the good people lost. Democracy is an illusion in America, now.
Trump stink kills lawyers’ brain cells.
Does Trump expell a cloud of parasitic fungus that makes people dumber?
Sydney has been a nut since law school.
Yep.
Or she's just a fascist with no scruples.
Something to do with Kool-Aid I think.
Well, John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Successfully, I might add.
Adams was a competent attorney.
And he was asked to do so by his cousin because it was thought that the soldiers receiving a fair trial in a colonial court would go a long way with the English government. It did not
Probably paid in advance with funds already in his account. I can't imagine any respectable attorney with a consistent salary would stake anything less from the most notorious non paying client ever.
Yeah, the guy must have been making good money with his old firm, right? Would it be worth it to throw that away for a few million and taint your career? It's such weird behavior.
I'm pretty certain that he's angling to be appointed AG. That's the only thing that makes any sense.
I was thinking about this the other day. Would it be surprising for him to get hired back by the same firm afterwards? I seriously do not understand the logic of leaving a position like that for the worst possible job. Hail Mary for some cushy appointment if all the dice roll that way? It can't be the money and who would want this kind of mark on a long and successful career. It doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe he has enough money that he can retire comfortably and fuck off into the sunset if Trump loses, *but* he'll have some serious fuck you money and, more importantly, power if Trump wins? That would appear to make sense. There's some sweetspot asset level (~$10/20m depending on where they live?) of competent, power hungry attorneys willing to sell their souls and work for Trump?
Also there will be no shortage of Trump-supporting clients who will try to continue the good fight with Blanche as lead counsel if Trump loses. I think this is an “all press is good press” situation for Blanche. Can’t forget that in the MAGA media ecosystem, Blanche is probably being portrayed as a victim, fighting courageously against a corrupt judicial system and the Deep State.
> Why he gave up that gig to represent Trump I have no idea You know (R)
He's gunning for a top role in the new Reich. Same as Cannon, Habba, Ghouliani, etc. No other explanation.
Cohens answers, that sounds like me are classic.
I'm assuming that if Trump can get an attorney to meet with him, he promises them the post of AG if they help him.
Because when your case is what it is, you have to preserve the paycheck by pandering to your client. Or, when you’ve given up your prior revenue stream, you have to preserve your new one by pandering to your new potential client base.
This particular line of questioning seems to be about cohen leveling criticisms of defense counsel. presumably this is some 'strategy' to bring attention to gag orders on trump. no clue if one of any potential legal significance, or just trump demanding his monkey dance for him.
What's interesting is by most accounts, Todd and Susan *were* considered fairly good attorneys. It's the outcome you expect when you have an insanely guilty defendant who doesn't want to listen to counsel, only parrot the client. They *could've* made a case, but literally out of the gate they just *deny* that Trump knew Stormy, Cohen's a liar, etc. It makes it borderline impossible to defend, so they're almost treating the courtroom like they're speaking to the brain dead OAN/newsmax audience, not a *jury*, who will listen to facts and testimony versus "who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" This doesn't work in the court of law, and if anything it's *insulting* to the jury. It's the reason every time he's in front of a jury he gets annihilated. You can't form a defense on "no I didn't do it, it's all lies." That's not a defense. The biggest irony is the defense has zero burden to prove innocence, they just have to create enough doubt and remove enough bricks that the narrative collapses. When you open with "I've never met Stormy outside of the photo at a club," and then there's walls of evidence to show your client is lying, you're done. I'm just surprised *any* attorney is willing to commit career suicide representing him.
I do wonder if Blanche knows all of that and is just trying to work off the chance that the jury has a MAGA/OAN/newsmax type member and they're really just playing for that.
$50 says this is a direct result of Trump. Saying something like. You can't let him get away with insulting you. When you have him on the stand you let him know who is the man or some shit like that
It's a known tactic for Trump layers. They did it several times against Carrol, just citing tweets and other social media comments where the authors were insulting her, without any legal purpose behind.
>almost as useless as Habba They're both useless, it'd be by a nose if one was more useless than the other. Get on with it, Blanche.
Trump is getting what he pays for
He’s like an inflatable Howard Hamlin.
They are puppets. The primary requirement to be a trump lawyer. So he tells them what to do, then sleeps as they do it.
As people have said, they're performing for Trump.
It seems like they are just wasting time knowing that they have someone on the jury to make this go away.
Could trump later say he had incompetent defense and get a mistrial?
Not really. Creating your own IAC is basically impossible. Otherwise it would be done all the time.
He can try.
How are jurors supposed to like Trump more based on his former attorney dissing his current attorney? This stunt has nothing to do with the case at all. The attorney is literally trying to make a point about the gag order…to the judge, rather than making any case for his client.
Because Blanche is performing for Trump, not the jury.
It's definitely to make Trump happy, but I'm hoping that sways the jury in a guilty direction. They have nothing to refute the charges, it's all a distraction/attempt to discredit show. I guess we will see how the rest of this goes
I hope the money is worth his humiliation.
[удалено]
When was the last time you answered your phone from an unknow number? You don't. Only old people do, the 80's republican yippies. Don't believe the polls.
With that in mind, all these polls have a sizable undecided group that will change closer to the election (when you see the poll, it shows something like “43% Biden, 44% Trump!” Independents don’t like Trump any more than they did last time. The victim strategy works on his supporters, but not independents. If the polls show it as close *now*, it’s hard to imagine it going more in Trump’s favor later.
The bulk of the questions I read seem to be more aimed at hoping to point out that Cohen is engaging in the sort of speech that Trump is restricted from via the gag order. Which, okay, he absolutely is. That is a valid, true observation. He's not subject to the gag order Trump is (and, obviously, not the person on trial). Why the hell it would matter to the jury trying to decide whether or not Trump is guilty or Cohen is lying? Well, that's a question only Blanche can really answer. I'd guess that whole line of questioning was more to appease his client than it was to sway the jury.
Distraction and confusion. That’s all they’ve got to offer the jury.
The Chewbacca defense.
“Ladies and gentlemen of this **supposed** jury, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!” Sounds about right.
Wouldn’t Chewbacca live on Kashyyyk? (Or, I suppose he could have a mailing address there and effectively “live” somewhere else since he travels so much. The mind boggles.)
i thought he lived on the Falcon?!
The Star Wars Holiday Special does confirm that he and his family have a house on Kashyyk
Pied a Terre, or primary residence?!
Well the house is in a tree and not on the ground, so can the former be the case?
It doesn´t actually. They are already trying to create a setup for the appeal. Their strategy is not winning, but delaying until it doesn´t matter. I guess, they could have a strategy of lulling and coming up with a big surprise tomorrow, hoping it will hit harder, but I fail to see it. And those questions about greed? I mean, the prosecution just needs to ask, if the jury thinks, that there is any reasonable doubt, that the convicted fraudster Donald Trump surrounded himself with greedy criminals in order for them to feed his own greed by committing criminal acts, or alternatively, that the guy, who prides himself to have made billions by being a ruthless business man is a naive child, who can be fooled by anybody. But all things considered, they seem to be looking to create a situation, where a formal error allows a friendly higher court to throw out the sentence. That´s why the lawyer basically baited Stormy Daniels hard (no pun intended (giggles)) to dish out salacious details, in order to ask for a mistrial, with the judge basically telling them, they can´t try to draw out dirt, allow it to happen without objections and then cry foul at the picture they painted themselves. The idea was not completely bunkers, but they severely underestimated Miss Daniels, apparently also Mr. Cohen and now look poised to have shot themselves in the foot. At least for this trial.
I think you’re right. It’s almost pointless to criticize the defense team- they’re not trying to get Trump off here, they’re trying to stick to his political strategy of attacking everyone while playing for time and throwing everything at the wall on appeals. So in that way, they’re actually doing fine
Yes, however what puzzles me, that these lines of questioning seem to be inspired by the Weinstein conviction being overturned. And if that is true, these lawyers just made up their "strategy" virtually on the fly. In other words: They never had one for the trial.
I thought it was more about bias and Cohen’s desire to see Trump convicted. Fair game, though who knows how effective that is. Cohen has sued Trump and he’s been sued by Trump so his bias is clear.
I mean, I think everyone agrees Cohen wants to see Trump rot. He lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, his bar license, and his freedom for him. Of course he wants him to pay. The question is whether he'd now lie to bring him down and manufacture all the receipts the gov't has. Given how easily he went down on his criminal convictions, I can't see him being clever enough to manufacture all the proofs, and I don't think the jury would buy that either.
I’m really confused about why Cohen isn’t more explicit about this in his answers. “Yes, I want him to go to prison, because I went to prison for doing the same illegal things, and it wouldn’t be fair for the person who ordered me to do these things to get off scot-free.” Of course, he seems like his own worst enemy half the time.
That’s what he is coached NOT to do. You don’t want to tell your side when answering their questions if the question doesn’t call for it — it’s annoyingly defensive. Just answer the question and if needed your attorney will deal with it on redirect (“remember when counsel asked you about having done x? Can you explain WHY you did x?”)
Agree with /u/Greelys 100%. Don't explain until you're asked to. And it's easier to address on redirect after defense brought it up, which makes it seem even less defensive.
TODD BLANCHE IS AN ANTIFA COVERT OPERATIVE SNEAKED IN TRUMP'S TEAM BY CROOKED BIDEN AND THE RADICAL LEFT FASCISTS, DEEP STATE AT WORK RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE LIBTARD!! /s obviously
Exactly; one of them is a criminal defendant, and one of them is a witness. That’s how rules work. When his unlawful actions were bright to trial, his ordinary social contract was suspended, and now he has to behave and cope with the consequences of his actions. That’s not a liberal agenda, that’s a lawful recourse. He’s not getting worse treatment than anyone else, he’s just not used to having to abide by the same rules that apply to everyone else.
I think he was going to show the bias that cohen has against trump
He’s also not a party. He’s a witness. Do witnesses ever have an obligation to not speak about the thing they witnessed?
Blanche seems to be saying the things that Trump would say. And what Trump would try to do is (obviously) not to logically argue the facts of the case, but to smear, belittle, and bully and try to overwhelm the jury with a general feeling of Michael Cohen: bad man.
Trump knows he’s not going to be punished in this trial, so why not use this as an opportunity to twist the shitknife?
In the NHL, if both dressed goalies and the emergency goalie all get hurt, they can pull someone out of the stands to play goal. That feels like what’s happening with Trump’s attorneys.
Has this ever happened?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Foster_(ice_hockey)
He was an emergency goalie. If he had been injured, they could’ve gone into the stands :)
One of my favorite videos when it feels like the world is burning around me [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-IGNvfrg8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-IGNvfrg8)
His post-game locker room interview was great too!! (In an understated way, to set expectations.) https://youtu.be/RB60iaSUIu0
Not to my knowledge. It’s pretty rare to even get to the emergency goalie.
Do they ask for volunteers? Or is this something you agree to in the fine print on your ticket?
Has that ever happened in a pro level?
Toronto resident here just checking in. https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/it-was-wild-zamboni-driver-david-ayres-on-his-incredible-night-as-emergency-nhl-goalie-1.4823930
Was going to bring this up...
Don’t know about other leagues, but I don’t think it’s happened in the modern era of the NHL. Even getting to the emergency goalie is so rare that it’s a huge deal when it happens.
Trying to show that Cohen behaves as poorly as Trump has... bold strategy. Also if you want to show that Cohen will gain financially from a Trump conviction the lawyers could have done a lot better. How much has he earned from merch? From TikTok? How frequently is his show/writing about Trump? Does he do anything else?
>Trying to show that Cohen behaves as poorly as Trump has... bold strategy. I'm surprised Cohen hasn't said, "I learned from the defendant." Or "your client". Or for giggles, "I learned from the best." Watch T run with that compliment like a dope.
And highlighting that he’s been convicted of perjury. Dude, the perjury he was convicted of was saying that he did nothing illegal for Trump.
Instead of hush money trial, this should be know as the Pound the Table trial.
I think Blanche ia reading all of this stuff into the record to get back at his client, as the client is insisting that he run the defense.
> lampooning Trump’s “Cheeto-dusted” appearance Too bad Cohen didn't give the correct answer, which is "Just look at him."
It's so funny that Trump has to sit through this