Lawrence: Trump defense ‘has yet to say a single word’ about criminal charges against him
In the latest "Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News" podcast episode, the ongoing criminal case against former President Trump takes center stage. The focus is on Michael Cohen's testimony and credibility after tough cross-examination by Trump's defense team. Key evidence like falsified business records and details around the Stormy Daniels payment are examined, underscoring the gravity of the charges against Trump.
The blurb highlights the delicate balance surrounding Cohen's credibility as a witness, with factors both supporting and undermining his reliability. It outlines the prosecution's case and the physical evidence tying Trump to potential criminal conduct, teasing the complex legal battle ahead.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 17, 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
Michael Cohen Cross-Examination: Questions of Credibility
During cross-examination by Trump's defense lawyer Todd Blanche, Cohen's reliability as a witness was cast into doubt.
Key Call Details in Question
Blanche presented texts suggesting a pivotal call between Cohen and Trump about the Stormy Daniels payment might have been about harassing calls Cohen received. Blanche elicited admissions from Cohen that his initial recollection of the call could be inconsistent or misleading.
Admissions of Past Dishonesty
Cohen acknowledged making technically true but misleading statements in the past, and affirmed a previous comment about always protecting Trump, potentially damaging his credibility as a witness against the former president.
Cohen's Credibility: Weighing Factors
Cohen's complex history and cross-examination conduct leave the jury's view of his credibility finely balanced.
Red Flags for Cohen's Credibility
Blanche highlighted Cohen's tendency to blame others for his misconduct. Cohen also accused prosecutors and a deceased judge of corruption, raising questions about his motives and truthfulness.
Potential Redeeming Factors
However, Cohen's direct manner and willingness to admit wrongdoing could offset credibility concerns, according to experts observing the trial. His straightforward responses give an impression of genuineness.
Legal Case Against Trump
As the criminal case unfolds, key evidence and testimony underscore the gravity of Trump's legal troubles.
Falsified Records at Case's Core
Blanche did not substantially challenge the 34 falsified business records at the heart of the case, featuring Trump's signatures and the Trump Organization's bookkeeping. This evidence, prosecutors argue, points to potential criminal conduct.
Evidence on Stormy Daniels Payment
Cohen provided vivid testimony about a chain of events implicating Trump in directing and reimbursing the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. Blanche conceded Trump reimbursed Cohen, contradicting the defense's claims that it was not a "payback." This aligns with Cohen's account and physical evidence like Weisselberg's handwritten notes detailing the payment scheme.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The Stormy Daniels payment was a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her alleged affair with Donald Trump secret. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, testified that Trump directed and reimbursed him for the payment. This payment was a key focus in the legal case against Trump, with prosecutors arguing it indicated potential criminal behavior. The defense lawyer acknowledged that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment, contradicting earlier claims.
- Weisselberg's handwritten notes are significant because they are physical records that detail aspects of the Stormy Daniels hush money payment scheme involving Trump. These notes could provide concrete evidence supporting Cohen's testimony about Trump's involvement in directing and reimbursing the payment. The existence of these notes adds a layer of credibility to the events described by Cohen during the trial. The notes may serve as crucial evidence in establishing the chain of events related to the Stormy Daniels payment.
Counterarguments
- Cohen's past dishonesty and misleading statements could suggest that his testimony is not entirely reliable.
- The texts presented by Blanche could indicate that there are alternative explanations for the communications between Cohen and Trump.
- Cohen's admission of always protecting Trump could be seen as a motive to shift blame away from himself and onto Trump.
- The tendency to blame others and accusations of corruption could be interpreted as tactics to deflect from Cohen's own misconduct.
- The direct manner and willingness to admit wrongdoing by Cohen could be perceived as a strategy to gain sympathy or leniency rather than a genuine expression of remorse.
- The lack of substantial challenge to the falsified business records by Blanche could be a strategic decision rather than an acceptance of their validity.
- The concession by Blanche that Trump reimbursed Cohen does not necessarily confirm the purpose of the payment or its legality.
- Physical evidence like Weisselberg's handwritten notes could be subject to interpretation and may not conclusively prove the intent behind the payments.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Key moments in the cross-examination of Michael Cohen by Donald Trump's defense lawyer
During the cross-examination of Michael Cohen by Todd Blanche, Trump's defense lawyer, several critical moments stood out that cast doubt on Cohen's reliability as a witness against Trump.
Blanche effectively undermined Cohen's recollection of a key phone call with Trump
Blanche presented texts suggesting that a significant phone call that Cohen claimed to have with Trump might have had a different context altogether.
Blanche presented evidence that the call was actually about Cohen receiving harassing calls, not about finalizing the Stormy Daniels hush money payment
Blanche revealed texts showing Cohen had been receiving harassing calls around the time of a key phone call with Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard. Cohen was questioned about texting Schiller concerning the harassing calls, implying that the call might have been about these issues rather than the Stormy Daniels payment.
Cohen initially claimed a firm recollection of the call, but then wavered and suggested he may have spoken to Trump about the Stormy Daniels matter
Cohen first testified with certainty that he talked directly with Trump during an 8:02 PM call on October 24 about moving forward with the Stormy Daniels deal and that Trump approved it. However, when presented with the evidence of harassing calls, Cohen admitted that the conversation with Schiller might have included the topic of his harasser, but he still suggested that he might have discussed the Stormy Daniels matter with Trump during the same call. His subsequent testimonies saw him adjusting his level of certainty.
Blanche elicited several damaging admissions from Cohen towards the end of the day's testimony
Cohen confronted issues about his past truthfulness and claims about his loyalty to Trump.
Cohen acknowledged making false statements in the past that he now says were technically true, though misleading
Lisa Rubin mentioned Cohen making a statement in February 2018 that, though technically true, ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Key moments in the cross-examination of Michael Cohen by Donald Trump's defense lawyer
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The cross-examination of Michael Cohen by Todd Blanche, Trump's defense lawyer, aimed to challenge Cohen's credibility as a witness against Trump. Blanche questioned Cohen's recollection of a key phone call, suggesting it may have been about harassing calls rather than the Stormy Daniels payment. Cohen faced scrutiny over past false statements and his loyalty to Trump, which could impact his credibility as a witness. The examination sought to create doubt about the nature of the October 24 call and Cohen's interactions with Trump.
- The Stormy Daniels hush money payment was a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payment was allegedly made to keep her from publicly discussing an affair she had with Donald Trump in 2006. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, was involved in arranging the payment to Daniels. The payment came under scrutiny for potential campaign finance violations and led to legal investigations and controversies surrounding Trump's presidency.
- Keith Schiller was Donald Trump's longtime bodyguard and confidant. He served as the Director of Oval Office Operations in the Trump administration. Lisa Rubin is a lawyer who has been involved in legal proceedings related to Michael Cohen and Donald Trump.
- The October 24 call is significant ...
Counterarguments
- The effectiveness of Blanche's undermining of Cohen's recollection could be questioned if there is other corroborating evidence supporting Cohen's version of events.
- The context of the call being about harassing calls does not necessarily preclude it from also being about the Stormy Daniels payment; both topics could have been discussed.
- Wavering on recollection does not automatically equate to dishonesty; memory can be affected by stress or the passage of time.
- Admitting to making false statements in the past, while damaging, does not mean that Cohen's current testimony is false; people can change and decide to come forward with the truth.
- Acknowledging inconsistencies regarding seeking a pa ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The potential impact of the cross-examination on the jury's perception of Cohen's credibility
The jury's perceptions of Cohen's testimony are poised on a knife-edge due to his complex history and the manner in which he presents his case during cross-examination.
Cohen's history of blaming others for his own misconduct could make the jury skeptical of his motives
Blanche underscores Cohen's tendency to blame various individuals and entities for his criminal actions during cross-examination. Cohen openly accuses the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York of corruption and does not stop there—he also insists that the deceased Judge Pauli, who presided over his case, was "in on it." Such assertions could paint Cohen as an unreliable witness in the eyes of the jury, who might see him as someone driven not by the desire to deliver a truthful account but by personal vendettas.
However, Cohen's direct demeanor and willingness to own up to his wrongdoing could offset concerns about his credibility
Despite this, the way Cohen presents himself might shift the jury's perception. Experts observing the trial take note of Cohen's direct demeanor—noting that he does not seem to be performing, but rather c ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The potential impact of the cross-examination on the jury's perception of Cohen's credibility
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Blaming others for misconduct during cross-examination can impact a witness's credibility by suggesting a lack of personal responsibility. It may lead the jury to question the witness's motives and truthfulness, as shifting blame can be seen as an attempt to avoid accountability. This behavior can create doubt about the witness's reliability and may influence how the jury perceives the overall testimony. In legal settings, such behavior can be a red flag for jurors, signaling potential issues with the witness's character and honesty.
- Cohen's accusations against prosecutors and a deceased judge of corruption could harm his credibility by making him appear vindictive and unreliable. These accusations suggest a motive beyond truth-telling, potentially leading the jury to question his integrity as a witness. Cohen's tendency to shift blame onto others, especially those involved in his legal proceedings, may raise doubts about his credibility and the sincerity of his testimony. Accusing individuals in positions of authority of corruption without substantial evidence can undermine Cohen's credibility in the eyes of the jury.
- A direct demeanor in a legal context typically means being straightforward, honest, and sincere in one's communication and behavior. When a witness or individual displays a direct demeanor, they come across as genuine and authentic, which can positively influence how others perceive their credibility and trustworthiness. This demeanor is often contrasted with behaviors like evasion, defensiveness, or inconsistency, which can raise doubts about a person's honesty and reliability. In the context of testimony, a direct demeanor can help establish a sense of transparency and openness, potentially enhancin ...
Counterarguments
- Cohen's history of blaming others might be a strategic legal defense rather than a reflection of his character, and the jury could be instructed to consider the evidence without bias towards his past behavior.
- Accusations against prosecutors and a judge, if unsupported, could indeed harm Cohen's credibility, but if there is any evidence to support these claims, it could also point to a pattern of misconduct by authorities, which might be relevant to the case.
- A direct demeanor and admissions of wrongdoing are not definitive indicators of truthfulness; the jury must still critically evaluate the consistency and plausibility of Cohen's testimony against other evidence.
- Experts' observations of Cohen's genuineness are subjective and may not alig ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The broader context of the criminal case against Donald Trump
As the criminal case against Donald Trump unfolds, key pieces of evidence and testimonies from significant witnesses underline the gravity of his legal troubles.
The falsified business records at the heart of the case have not been substantially challenged by the defense
The indictment against Trump includes allegations of 34 falsified records, featuring Trump's own signatures and the Trump Organization's bookkeeping. Meanwhile, the defense, led by Todd Blanche, has not substantially interrogated these critical pieces of evidence. Blanche's lack of rigorous questioning about these falsified documents, which are central to the prosecution's case, has not gone unnoticed.
Trump's involvement in directing and reimbursing the Stormy Daniels hush money payment remains a key part of the prosecution's case
Cohen's vivid account depicts a chain of events showing Trump's active role in the controversial payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen describes a conversation in which Trump explicitly instructs him to carry out the payment and coordinate the details with Allen Weisselberg. This testimony is supported by physical evidence, such as a bank statement with Weisselberg's handwritten notes laying out the payment scheme on its margins, which directly indicates Cohen's disbursement to Stormy Daniels.
Cohen's testimony about Trump approving and directing the payment, as well as Weisselberg's handwritten notes, provide direct evidence of Trump's role
Cohen has provided the court with Weisselberg's handwritten notes that calculate the reimbursement to Cohen. Furthermore, the court heard an audio recording wherein Trump talks about handling negative press from women using cash. During cross-examination, Blanche argued that "cash" referred to a non-financed payment, analogous to buying an apartment, whereas Cohen maintained that it referred to actual physical cash. This narrative fits into the broader tapestry of evidence suggesting Trump's direct involvement.
Blanche's acknowledgement that Trump reimbursed Cohen undercuts the defense's argume ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The broader context of the criminal case against Donald Trump
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Todd Blanche is a lawyer leading the defense in the criminal case against Donald Trump. Cohen is a key witness who has provided testimony and evidence in the case. Allen Weisselberg is another individual involved in the case, particularly in relation to financial matters and payments.
- The criminal case against Donald Trump involves allegations of 34 falsified business records that bear Trump's signature and relate to the Trump Organization's financial records. These falsified documents are crucial evidence in the prosecution's case, indicating potential financial misconduct or fraud. The defense's failure to challenge these records significantly strengthens the prosecution's argument against Trump. The presence of these falsified records underscores the seriousness of the legal issues Trump faces.
- The Stormy Daniels hush money payment was a controversial transaction where Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Trump. Evidence suggests Trump directed and reimbursed Cohen for this payment, implicating Trump in the scheme. The payment and its cover-up have legal impli ...
Counterarguments
- The defense may have strategic reasons for not challenging the falsified business records at this stage, possibly to focus on other aspects of the case or to introduce doubt about the records' relevance or materiality later in the trial.
- The prosecution's reliance on Cohen's testimony could be problematic given his potential biases and previous legal issues, which might affect his credibility as a witness.
- Weisselberg's notes, while presented as direct evidence, could be subject to interpretation, and the defense might argue that they do not conclusively prove Trump's involvement.
- The acknowledgment by Blanche that Trump reimbursed Cohen does not necessarily imply an admission of guilt; it could be argued that the reimbursement was for legal services rendered and not specifically for the hush money payment.
- The defense might ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
