Lawrence: Sleeping 'old man' Trump made trial look like it was in a nursing home
In this episode of Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News, the team examines the unfolding trial surrounding Trump's alleged involvement in a hush money scheme to silence Stormy Daniels. The summary recounts key testimony from Michael Cohen, who affirms Trump directed payments to influence the 2016 election. It details the Republican Party's steadfast defense of Trump despite accusations of adultery and criminality.
The summary also delves into Cohen's journey from loyal Trump ally to vocal critic, the prosecution's methodical building of a strong case against Trump, and the defense's struggles to counter damaging evidence and Cohen's credibility as a witness. The summary presents a comprehensive look at this high-profile trial and its implications.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 15, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
The Stormy Daniels Hush Money Scandal
Cohen testified Trump directed Daniels payoff
Michael Cohen testified under oath that Trump directed him to make hush money payments to Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 election, Cohen said. Cohen affirmed creating false invoices to conceal the payments' true purpose: reimbursing the Daniels payoff.
Republicans defend Trump's alleged adultery coverup
The Republican Party, represented by Speaker Mike Johnson, publicly declared support for Trump despite allegations of adultery with Daniels and the criminal coverup scheme. Johnson's stance contradicts his own religious principles and exemplifies the party's willingness to overlook indiscretions to stand by Trump, Weissmann notes.
Cohen's Turn Against Trump
From loyal "cult member" to Trump critic
Cohen once pledged unwavering loyalty to Trump, vowing to "always protect" him. However, an FBI raid made Cohen realize he should no longer lie for Trump. Cohen testified regretting his past actions in service of Trump, including lying and bullying people.
"Don't flip" pressure from Trump team
Cohen believed lawyer Robert Costello tried establishing secret communication between himself, Trump, and Giuliani. An email from Costello telling Cohen he was "loved" by Trump was seen by Cohen as a message to not cooperate with prosecutors, part of the pressure not to turn on allies.
Prosecution's Strong Case Against Trump
Evidence methodically presented through Cohen
Weissmann praises the prosecution's overwhelming case assembled through Cohen's testimony. Cohen's narrative, supported by evidence like Trump signing reimbursement checks, firmly implicates Trump's involvement in the scheme.
Jury likely sees prosecution case as credible
The jury appears receptive to Cohen's compelling testimony. Despite the defense's attempts to discredit Cohen, Weissmann and O'Donnell believe the extensive evidence will likely persuade the jury of Trump's culpability.
Defense Struggles to Counter Prosecution
Blanche's ineffective cross-examination of Cohen
Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche failed to score any meaningful points discrediting Cohen during cross-examination. Cohen remained composed as the judge repeatedly had to intervene, questioning Blanche's unproductive approach.
Trump's history undercuts defense narrative
The defense must argue Cohen and Weisselberg concealed the criminal scheme from Trump, whom O'Brien notes was obsessive over costs. Convincing the jury Trump signed reimbursement checks obliviously seems implausible given his tendencies.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Johnson's stance contradicts his own religious principles because many religious beliefs emphasize moral values such as honesty and fidelity, which can conflict with supporting someone involved in alleged adultery and a cover-up scandal. This contrast highlights the tension between personal beliefs and political loyalties that individuals, like Speaker Mike Johnson, may face in complex situations.
- The FBI raid on Michael Cohen's office in April 2018 was a significant event that led to his realization that he should no longer lie for Trump. The raid was part of an investigation into Cohen's financial dealings, including the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. The scrutiny and legal pressure from the raid prompted Cohen to reassess his loyalty to Trump and his involvement in potentially illegal activities. This pivotal moment marked a turning point in Cohen's relationship with Trump and his willingness to cooperate with authorities.
- Costello attempted to set up a covert channel of communication involving himself, Trump, and Giuliani. This secretive communication was perceived by Cohen as an effort to prevent him from cooperating with prosecutors. It implied a message from Trump's team to discourage Cohen from turning against his allies.
- Weissmann and O'Donnell are legal experts involved in the prosecution against Trump. They are mentioned in the context of evaluating the strength of the case built around Michael Cohen's testimony. Their analysis suggests confidence in the evidence presented against Trump.
- Blanche's ineffective cross-examination of Cohen: During a trial, cross-examination is when the opposing party questions a witness. In this case, Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, failed to effectively challenge or undermine Michael Cohen's testimony while questioning him. Blanche's inability to weaken Cohen's statements may have hindered the defense's efforts to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.
- Weisselberg is a reference to Allen Weisselberg, the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization. He has been a key figure in various investigations involving former President Donald Trump's business dealings. Weisselberg's role in financial matters within the Trump Organization has drawn significant attention in legal proceedings and investigations.
Counterarguments
- Cohen's credibility as a witness may be questioned due to his previous conviction for lying to Congress, which the defense could argue undermines his testimony.
- The Republican Party's support for Trump could be based on policy alignment and political strategy rather than a disregard for moral principles.
- The pressure Cohen felt from Trump's team could be interpreted as standard legal advice or expressions of support rather than an attempt to obstruct justice.
- The prosecution's case, while strong according to the text, may not account for all possible exculpatory evidence or alternative explanations for Trump's actions.
- The jury's perception of the case's credibility is subjective and could be influenced by factors other than the evidence presented, such as preconceived notions or media coverage.
- Blanche's cross-examination tactics might be part of a broader legal strategy that is not immediately apparent from the text.
- The defense narrative that Trump was unaware of the criminal scheme could be supported by evidence not mentioned in the text, such as delegation of financial responsibilities to subordinates.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Trump's alleged criminal involvement
The case of the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels continues to unfold, revealing further details about the involvement of former President Donald Trump and the subsequent defense by members of the Republican Party.
Cohen's testimony about the false business records and Trump's criminal culpability
Cohen testified under oath about his role and Trump’s involvement
Michael Cohen testified under oath that the payments made to Stormy Daniels were directed by Donald Trump and were for the benefit of Trump, with the clear intent of influencing the 2016 presidential election. Cohen stated that he would not have made the payment if it were not for the campaign, emphasizing the electoral motivations behind the hush money.
Discovery of false invoices and purpose of payments
Weissmann spoke about a bank transfer from Essential Consulting to Keith Davidson being flagged as suspicious, which eventually led to the revelation of the payment's connections to Stormy Daniels. Cohen discussed the reimbursement payments for these hush money transactions in the Oval Office with then-President Trump. This culminated in an admission from Trump that he reimbursed Cohen.
During his testimony, Cohen was shown an invoice he created to facilitate Trump's false bookkeeping for the reimbursement, to which he affirmed the document was indeed a false record. All the checks received by Cohen from Trump, ostensibly for legal services, were mislabeled to disguise the actual nature of the payments, which were reimbursements for the payment made to Stormy Daniels.
Cohen provided that every element necessary to substantiate the charge of falsifying business records was delivered through his testimony, making clear the intention behind the payoff was to guard Trump's political aspirations, and had no relation to protecting his marriage.
Trump is facing a criminal charge of falsifying business records
It is stated that Trump is facing the criminal charge of falsifying business records, although no specific information or context from the podcast transcript regarding this potential charge is provided.
The Republican Party's defense of Trump's alleged adultery and criminal coverup
Public declaration of support for Trump
Republican Speaker of the House, M ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Trump's alleged criminal involvement
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The hush money payments to Stormy Daniels were payments made to keep her alleged affair with Donald Trump quiet. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, testified that Trump directed these payments to influence the 2016 election. Cohen created false invoices to disguise the nature of the payments, which were later reimbursed by Trump. This led to allegations of falsifying business records and legal implications for Trump.
- False business records were created to cover up the reimbursement payments made to Stormy Daniels. Michael Cohen testified that he fabricated invoices to disguise the nature of the payments as legal fees. These false records were used to hide the true purpose of the payments, which were related to the hush money given to Stormy Daniels. The intention behind falsifying these records was to conceal the connection between the payments and Donald Trump's involvement.
- Republican Speaker Mike Johnson's support for Trump despite allegations of adultery and criminal cover-up contradicts his Southern Baptist religious principles, which typically condemn such behavior. This highlights a conflict between personal beliefs and political loyalty within the Republican Party. Johnson's defense of Trump showcases the party's wil ...
Counterarguments
- Cohen's credibility may be questioned due to his own criminal convictions and personal interest in reducing his sentence or seeking revenge.
- The legality of the payments could be argued if they were made to protect personal reputation rather than specifically to influence the election.
- The charge of falsifying business records may be challenged on technical grounds or the intent behind the record-keeping practices.
- Support for Trump from Mike Johnson and other Republicans could be based on policy alignment or broader political strategy rather than a disregard for moral standards.
- The defense of Trump by the Republican Party could be seen as a stance against what they perceive as politically motivate ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Cohen's relationship with Trump and his decision to turn against him
Michael Cohen's transformation from a loyal defender to a vocal critic of Donald Trump has been a highly publicized aspect of Trump's presidency and its controversies. Multiple factors influenced Cohen's significant shift in stance.
Cohen's evolution from loyal "cult member" to Trump critic
Cohen initially vowed to "always protect Mr. Trump" and served as his personal attorney
As Trump's personal attorney, Cohen was once a defiant loyalist who publicly vowed his unyielding support. He stated, "I will always protect Mr. Trump," marking his commitment during the early stages of Trump's presidency.
An FBI raid on Cohen's home and conversations with his family made him decide to no longer lie for Trump
However, Cohen's loyalty began to unravel following an FBI raid on his home, which was a part of a broader investigation. The impact of the raid, coupled with reflections and conversations with his family, contributed to Cohen's realization that he should not continue misleading statements on behalf of President Trump.
Cohen testified that he regretted his past actions in service of Trump, including lying and bullying people
Cohen's change of heart became evident as he testified before Congress, expressing his regrets about his conduct while he was working for Trump. His contrition extended to lying to protect Trump and engaging in bullying tactics to silence critics, signaling his complete departure from his previous role as a staunch Trump ally.
The "don't flip" messages Cohen received from Trump and his associates
Cohen was concerned that a lawyer representing him, Costello, was trying to establish a back-channel communication to Trump
Cohen's suspicion toward individuals around him grew as he believed that Robert Costello, a lawyer who may have been representing him at the time and had connections to Rudy Giuliani, was trying to maintain a covert line of communication between Cohen, Giuliani, and Trump in the White House.
The email from Costello te ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Cohen's relationship with Trump and his decision to turn against him
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Michael Cohen served as Donald Trump's personal attorney and was known for his unwavering loyalty to Trump. However, their relationship soured after an FBI raid on Cohen's home, leading him to reconsider his allegiance. Cohen later testified about regretting his past actions in service of Trump, signaling a significant shift in their dynamic. The pressure tactics Cohen faced, including messages interpreted as warnings not to cooperate with prosecutors, further strained their relationship.
- The FBI raid on Michael Cohen's home in April 2018 was part of a broader investigation into his business dealings and payments made to women who claimed to have had affairs with Donald Trump. The raid was conducted based on a search warrant obtained by federal prosecutors, and it resulted in the seizure of documents, electronic devices, and other materials from Cohen's residence and office. This event marked a significant escalation in legal scrutiny surrounding Cohen and his connections to Trump, leading to increased public attention and speculation about potential legal implications for both men. The raid ultimately played a pivotal role in Cohen's decision to distance himself from Trump and cooperate with authorities.
- Robert Costello's connection to Rudy Giuliani is significant because Giuliani is a prominent figure in Trump's inner circle and legal team. Costello's attempt to establish a back-channel communication between Cohen, Giuliani, and Trump suggests a potential strategy to manage the fallout from Cohen's legal troubles. The email from Costello, seemingly conveying Trump's affection for Cohen, could be interpre ...
Counterarguments
- Cohen's decision to no longer lie for Trump could be seen as self-serving, as it came after he was under legal scrutiny and his own interests were at risk.
- Cohen's testimony and regret could be interpreted as an attempt to reduce his own legal consequences rather than a genuine change of heart.
- The interpretation of Costello's email as a message not to cooperate with prosecutors is subjective and could be seen as Cohen's assumption rather than a clear directive from Trump or his associates.
- Cohen's concerns about back-channel communications could be viewed as speculative without concrete evidence of such i ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The prosecution's case and the strength of the evidence presented through Cohen's testimony
The prosecution's methodical presentation of evidence through Michael Cohen's testimony has seemingly laid a robust foundation for their case against Donald Trump, with particular focus on the false business records charge.
The prosecution's methodical presentation of evidence through Cohen's testimony
Weissmann commends the prosecution's assembly of the case, noting the compelling nature of the evidence which he describes as "truly overwhelming." He posits that were it not for the high-profile nature of the defendant, Donald Trump, the case would likely be seen as unequivocally strong.
Cohen's involvement in narrating events, bolstered by supporting evidence, contributes significantly to the credibility of the accounts given in court. Weissmann adds that the transaction scheme, which also implicated Allen Weisselberg, was not concealed from Donald Trump—demonstrated by the fact that Trump was actively signing checks related to the transactions.
The prosecution's confidence was underlined by their decision to conclude their case with Cohen's testimony, framing it as a narrative of crime and complicity between Cohen and Trump.
The jury's likely assessment of the str ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The prosecution's case and the strength of the evidence presented through Cohen's testimony
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Allen Weisselberg is an American businessman who previously served as the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. He has been involved in legal issues related to tax evasion, criminal charges, and falsifying business records. Weisselberg's actions and testimony have been significant in legal proceedings involving Donald Trump and the Trump Organization.
- To "impugn Cohen's credibility" means to challenge or cast doubt on the trustworthiness or reliability of Michael Cohen as a witness. This could involve questioning his honesty, integrity, or motives in providing testimony during the legal proceedings. The defense may attempt to discredit Cohen's character or the accuracy of his statements to weaken the impact of his testimony on the case. Impugning credibility is a common legal strategy used to undermine the persuasiveness of a witness's account.
- A "transaction scheme" in this context typically refers to a series of planned financial transactions designed to achieve a specific outcome, often involving deceptive or illegal practices. In the case mentioned, it appears that the prosecuti ...
Counterarguments
- Cohen's past criminal convictions and his own involvement in the crimes could undermine his credibility as a witness.
- The strength of documentary evidence has not been detailed, and without strong corroborative evidence, Cohen's testimony alone may not be sufficient.
- The jury's perception of Cohen's testimony could be influenced by his previous lies to Congress, which the defense could use to cast doubt on his reliability.
- The "youthful" jury's attentiveness does not necessarily indicate how they will assess the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.
- The high-profile nature of the defendant could lead to a more rigorous examination of the evidence by the jury, who may be aware of the potential consequences of their decision.
- The conclusion of the prosecution's case with Cohen's testimony is a strategic choice ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The defense strategy and performance, especially the cross-examination by Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche
Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche faced difficulties during the cross-examination of Cohen, indicating weaknesses in the defense's strategy and undermining their case against the allegations.
Blanche's ineffective cross-examination of Cohen
Blanche attempted to portray Cohen as a serial liar lacking credibility, intending to invalidate his testimony. However, this approach did not prove successful.
Blanche failed to score any relevant points against Cohen, who maintained his composure and reasonable tone
Despite his tentative strategy to discredit Cohen from the start, Blanche failed to score any relevant points. Tim O’Brien points out that Cohen maintained his composure and reasonable tone throughout the cross-examination, which did not go as intended for Blanche.
The judge repeatedly had to intervene and question Blanche's approach, suggesting it was unproductive
Justice Marshanda had to sustain several objections from the prosecution regarding Cohen’s treatment during the cross-examination. Moreover, during a previous issue unrelated to Cohen's cross-examination, the judge warned Blanche that he was losing credibility. Blanche's ineffectiveness was further highlighted by the judge’s interventions, suggesting that his approach might have been unhelpful.
The defense's challenge in overcoming the prosecution's case
The defense faces a significant challenge in constructing a credible argument to counter the prosecution's case, as Trump's own behavior conflicts with their narrative.
The defense will struggle to credibly argue that Cohen and Weisselberg kept Trump in the dark about the criminal scheme
The defense must persuade the j ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The defense strategy and performance, especially the cross-examination by Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Cohen and Weisselberg are individuals who have had close professional relationships with former President Donald Trump. Cohen, a former lawyer for Trump, has been involved in various legal issues related to Trump's business dealings. Weisselberg, the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization, has been responsible for managing Trump's financial affairs for many years. Their roles and actions are crucial in understanding the allegations and defenses in legal proceedings involving Trump.
- Tim O'Brien is a journalist and author known for his coverage of Donald Trump. He has written extensively about Trump's business dealings and personal life, providing insights into Trump's character and behavior. O'Brien's analysis often sheds light on Trump's financial practices and management style, offering valuable perspectives on the subject. His expertise adds depth to discussions involving Trump's legal challenges and defense strategies.
- Justice Marshanda's interventions during Todd Blanche's cross-examination of Cohen were significant as they indicated concerns about the approach and conduct of Trump's lawyer. The judge's repeated need to sustain objections and warnings to Blanche suggested that the line of questioning or tactics used were not productive or were potentially da ...
Counterarguments
- Blanche's strategy might have been to establish a pattern of behavior for Cohen that could later be used to question his credibility, which may not be immediately apparent during the cross-examination.
- The effectiveness of a cross-examination can sometimes only be judged in the context of the entire trial, not just in isolation.
- The judge's interventions do not necessarily indicate that Blanche's approach was unproductive; they could also reflect the judge's commitment to maintaining courtroom decorum and procedure.
- The defense's argument that Cohen and Weisselberg acted without Trump's knowledge could be part of a larger legal strategy that aims to create reasonable doubt among jurors.
- Trump's attention to financial details could be argued to be consistent with delegating specific ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
1-Page Summary- The hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Trump's alleged criminal involvement
- Cohen's relationship with Trump and his decision to turn against him
- The prosecution's case and the strength of the evidence presented through Cohen's testimony
- The defense strategy and performance, especially the cross-examination by Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
