So the former banker said that Cohen created a company account and used a home equity line of credit to fund it with $130,000. Cohen then submitted a wire transfer to Richardson, who was representing Stormy Daniels.


The scumbags at the enquirer washed their hands of us and said it was all on Cohen going forward

At no point has any of them testified that Donald Trump had anything to do with this, or made any payments himself. Everything was filled out and done by Cohen.

Once again, why is Trump on trial and not Cohen?

Quote:

---

Keith Davidson says he wrote in an email to Michael Cohen on October 17: "Please be advised that my client deems her settlement agreement canceled and void ab initio," which means from the start.
"Please further be advised that I no longer represent her in this or any matter," Davidson added in the email.
Davidson says he let Cohen know he was off the case. "I didn't want to receive a million frustrating phone calls from Michael," he says.
Davidson says this email was "the straw that broke the camel's back" and "this is where push came to shove."

---

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

AMI General Counsel Cameron Stracher suggested Davidson call Cohen.
Davidson texted Dylan Howard:
"he wants me to call Cohen. U think that's ok? Ive been trying like hell to avoid that."
Davidson says that "even when we spoke," he and AMI's general counsel "still weren't on the same page." He explains this was why Strachter told him to call Cohen.
Davidson testified "I thought it was odd" that he was told to call Cohen.
Davidson says he didn't want to talk to Cohen because of his last conversation with Cohen in 2011 around the blog post. He said it was "not pleasant or constructive. I didn't particularly like dealing with him and that's why I was trying like hell to avoid talking to him."
"Ok we are paying," Howard texted Davidson on August 8, 2016. "Glad it all sorted."
"****en Jesus," Howard texted.
Davidson testified, "I think it was just a frustrating deal for everybody involved." It was a lot of "heavy lifting."
"Yes, I believe so. I told Cohen this never would've happened without you," Davidson responded to Howard.
"He's hopeless. Oh well. Another one done!" Howard responded

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors are now showing Keith Davidson's email to Michael Cohen on August 5, 2016, asking Cohen to call him.
"I called him to let him know as a professional courtesy that the deal involving his client closed," Davidson testified.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked him, who was Cohen's client. "Donald Trump," Davidson said.
Donald Trump was not a named party to the deal, Davidson said, but also added he recognized the benefit this deal with former Playboy model Karen McDougal would serve Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Steinglass is showing the jury that the text messages were sent the same day as the effective date of AMI's contract with McDougal.

---

Quote:

---

Keith Davidson says he received 45% of the $150,000 deal.

---

---

Seriously? That's his testimony?

He ASSUMED it was Trump? With no evidence, just supposition? Nice....

In reply to Foreverconservative

Quote:

---

Once again, why is Trump on trial and not Cohen?

---

Pick me! Pick me!

Because Cohen isn't leading in the polls to be the next president taking away the democrats power?

Quote:

---

Davidson says he had conversations with Dylan Howard during this time, where he said he would express that Cohen "was not being truthful."

Quote:

---

"I thought he was trying to kick the can down the road until after the election," Davidson testified about Cohen's excuses for not coming up with the funding

---

---

Davidson's testimony has been awful for the prosecution and we are still on direct.

In reply to Foreverconservative

Foreverconservative said:

---

So the former banker said that Cohen created a company account and used a home equity line of credit to fund it with $130,000. Cohen then submitted a wire transfer to Richardson, who was representing Stormy Daniels.


The scumbags at the enquirer washed their hands of us and said it was all on Cohen going forward

At no point has any of them testified that Donald Trump had anything to do with this, or made any payments himself. Everything was filled out and done by Cohen.

Once again, why is Trump on trial and not Cohen?

---

That's why Cohen is the star witness. Trump pressured Cohen to act this way in order to illegally influence an election. LMAO

Rarely do I use the popcorn emoji.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday railed against the gag order he's under in his New York criminal hush money trial after being fined for violations.

Quote:

---

"This Judge has taken away my Constitutional Right to FREE SPEECH. I am the only Presidential Candidate in History to be GAGGED. This whole "Trial" is RIGGED, and by taking away my FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THIS HIGHLY CONFLICTED JUDGE IS RIGGING THE PRESIDENTIAL OF 2024 ELECTION. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!" Trump posted on Truth Social.

---

Remember: Trump is not barred from speaking at the trial. He is barred from making statements about witnesses, jurors, prosecutors, court staff and family members of the prosecutors, court staff and Manhattan district attorney. This morning, he was fined $9,000 after Judge Juan Merchan ruled he had violated the gag order in nine different posts on social media and his campaign website.

---

Quote:

---

Trump has entered with his phone in his right hand.
Eric Trump and Susie Wiles have returned.
Judge Merchan is speaking off-mic to prosecutors.
Davidson, who is testifying, has also entered the courtroom.
The jury has just filed back as well.

---

In reply to Science Denier

Science Denier said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

So the former banker said that Cohen created a company account and used a home equity line of credit to fund it with $130,000. Cohen then submitted a wire transfer to Richardson, who was representing Stormy Daniels.


The scumbags at the enquirer washed their hands of us and said it was all on Cohen going forward

At no point has any of them testified that Donald Trump had anything to do with this, or made any payments himself. Everything was filled out and done by Cohen.

Once again, why is Trump on trial and not Cohen?

---

That's why Cohen is the star witness. Trump pressured Cohen to act this way in order to illegally influence an election. LMAO

Rarely do I use the popcorn emoji.

---

Not only that, Trump pressured Cohen to not only miss payment deadlines to Stormy, but also to take out a 2nd mortgage on his own home to pull the deal off.

If Trump was running this conspiracy, he was doing so with the same level of competence as the insurrectionists trying to topple the government on Jan 6th.

Quote:

---

Davidson is back on the stand.
The jury is now being shown another string of text messages between Davidson and Dylan Howard after the deal to pay Stormy Daniels seemed to crumble.

Quote:

---

Davidson texted, "I can't believe Cohen let this go. It's going to be a sh*t show."
Howard replied, "I bet. All because Trump is tight."

---

Davidson explained to the jury when Howard said Trump is tight he meant that Trump "was frugal."
Davidson said he believed "they had this deal sort of on a silver platter and it was just there for the taking."
He said the only reason the deal didn't close was "because they didn't want to spend the money."

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's lawyers objected to a line of questioning related to Keith Davidson's grand jury testimony.
The judge sustained the objection.
Trump is shaking his head side to side in court.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass just asked Keith Davidson: "Did you have an understanding of how this deal was going to be funded?"

Davidson says he had an assumption.

---

Quote:

---

Trump was looking at a note from Todd Blanche just now and the attorney was smiling. Trump was not and handed it back to him.

Trump leaned back to look toward Steinglass as the judge continued sustaining objections to the prosecutor's questions.

---

This is going from bad to worse for the prosecution.

Quote:

---

We're back to looking at text messages between Davidson and Howard.
These texts pick up after Howard said Trump was tight.
Howard texted Davidson, "I reckon that Trump impersonator I hired has more cash."
Davidson testified he interpreted that text to mean "that Trump wasn't as wealthy as he stated."

---

In reply to Tony Franklins Other Shoe I thought Trump's team wanted to put Cohen on the stand

In reply to jt2hunt I believe he was stating that in reference to the prosecution having to do that.

Quote:

---

Davidson is now discussing a series of texts from October 2016 about efforts to salvage the Stormy Daniels deal.
On October 25, Howard texted Davidson: "Going to see Pecker in 15. Will ask for an update. Any word?" That was a reference to the publisher of the National Enquirer David Pecker.
"I'm awaiting a call any second," Davidson responded via text. He testified he could not remember who that was in reference to.
Davidson says he thought AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer, was attempting to "resurrect" the Stormy Daniels deal.
Davidson explained that Howard forwarded him a text Howard had sent to Cohen:
"I wrote Keith calling you urgently. We have to coordinate something on the matter he's calling you about or could look awfully bad for everyone."
Howard texts Davidson: "push (Cohen) for the cash. DP and I just told him he has to pay the 150k."
Davidson texts Howard, "He says that you are paying."
Some context: Looking at these texts from October 25, 2016, Davidson testified his understanding from Howard at this point was Michael Cohen would resurrect the deal and Davidson "should try to get as much as he could up to $150,000."

---

Quote:

---

The jury is now seeing an email from October 26, 2016, from Keith Davidson to Michael Cohen with wiring instructions.

"This is the fourth or fifth time I sent my wiring instructions to Michael Cohen," Davidson testifies.

---

Quote:

---

The jury is being excused for the day.

---

Quote:

---

Before breaking for the day, Keith Davidson described Michael Cohen like the dog who yells "Squirrel!"

Steinglass asks how was Cohen's demeanor during this time on the phone. "He was highly excitable, sort of a pants-on-fire kind of guy," Davidson said.

---

LOL.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Davidson is now discussing a series of texts from October 2016 about efforts to salvage the Stormy Daniels deal.
On October 25, Howard texted Davidson: "Going to see Pecker in 15. Will ask for an update. Any word?" That was a reference to the publisher of the National Enquirer David Pecker.
"I'm awaiting a call any second," Davidson responded via text. He testified he could not remember who that was in reference to.
Davidson says he thought AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer, was attempting to "resurrect" the Stormy Daniels deal.
Davidson explained that Howard forwarded him a text Howard had sent to Cohen:
"I wrote Keith calling you urgently. We have to coordinate something on the matter he's calling you about or could look awfully bad for everyone."
Howard texts Davidson: "push (Cohen) for the cash. DP and I just told him he has to pay the 150k."
Davidson texts Howard, "He says that you are paying."
Some context: Looking at these texts from October 25, 2016, Davidson testified his understanding from Howard at this point was Michael Cohen would resurrect the deal and Davidson "should try to get as much as he could up to $150,000."

---

Quote:

---

The jury is now seeing an email from October 26, 2016, from Keith Davidson to Michael Cohen with wiring instructions.

"This is the fourth or fifth time I sent my wiring instructions to Michael Cohen," Davidson testifies.

---

Quote:

---

The jury is being excused for the day.

---

---

So we're now less than two weeks from the election. I understand the sense of urgency on the part of Cohen, Daniels, Davidson, et al. They're losing their window to get paid.

But mail in ballots have already mailed. Early voting is almost over. With every passing day, the need on Trump's part to have a deal is diminishing.

This case can't get any more stupid, can it?

I'm sorry but I just can't understand what the state is doing with their theory of the case. Yes, there is something to said about drawing out the sting with a witness when you know the defense will do it if the state does not. That is most common with admissible prior convictions, immunity deals and the like.

But having nearly every single state witness trashing not only Cohen's personality as an a-hole but also that they don't believe anything out of his mouth and doubt he has authority from Trump to do these deals? Attacking their star witnesses' credibility and his demeanor?

Kind of like the state saying, yeah, Michael Cohen is Satan but he's our Satan.

Just insane to me. Plus, I seriously doubt Trump will nor even needs to take the stand at this point. Will reasses once Stormy and Cohen take the stand and to a lesser extent, McDougal. But so far, there is no connection between what these people were doing and Trump. And when it comes to making bookkeeping entries? Obviously Trump wasn't doing that on his laptop with a Quickbooks program on it.

In reply to jrdaustin

Quote:

---

This case can't get any more stupid, can it?

---

Yes it can. See my post kust above. Attacking the credibility of your own witness and the most crucial one is stupid from a strategy standpoint.

That is especially true with two lawyers on the jury including a civil litigation attorney. he has to be thinking, "WOW, Cohen must really be bad for the state to try to innoculate him as intensely dislikeable and not trustworthy before he even takes the stand? That guy must be a real piece of work."

Honestly, I didn't think the state cares about winning this. They have two goals:

1. Smear Trumps image
2. Prevent him from campaigning for an extended period of time.

It's debatable they are winning on goal 1, but they are crushing goal 2.

In reply to AustinAg2K

AustinAg2K said:

---

Honestly, I didn't think the state cares about winning this. They have two goals:

1. Smear Trumps image
2. Prevent him from campaigning for an extended period of time.

It's debatable they are winning on goal 1, but they are crushing goal 2.

---

Jonathan Turley has now joined The Five. His trashing of this phony case will get even more exposure.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm sorry but I just can't understand what the state is doing with their theory of the case. Yes, there is something to said about drawing out the sting with a witness when you know the defense will do it if the state does not. That is most common with admissible prior convictions, immunity deals and the like.

But having nearly every single state witness trashing not only Cohen's personality as an a-hole but also that they don't believe anything out of his mouth and doubt he has authority from Trump to do these deals? Attacking their star witnesses' credibility and his demeanor?

Kind of like the state saying, yeah, Michael Cohen is Satan but he's our Satan.

Just insane to me. Plus, I seriously doubt Trump will nor even needs to take the stand at this point. Will reasses once Stormy and Cohen take the stand and to a lesser extent, McDougal. But so far, there is no connection between what these people were doing and Trump. And when it comes to making bookkeeping entries? Obviously Trump wasn't doing that on his laptop with a Quickbooks program on it.

---

LOL, didn't the prosecution have the Judge tell the jury that the defense will try to discredit Cohen? I would make a motion to the Judge that Cohen has already been discredited by the prosecution's own witnesses, thus, having him removed from being able to testify.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This case can't get any more stupid, can it?

---

Yes it can. See my post kust above. Attacking the credibility of your own witness and the most crucial one is stupid from a strategy standpoint.

That is especially true with two lawyers on the jury including a civil litigation attorney. he has to be thinking, "WOW, Cohen must really be bad for the state to try to innoculate him as intensely dislikeable and not trustworthy before he even takes the stand? That guy must be a real piece of work."

---

Why would the prosecution be attempting to make Cohen look dislikeable and not trustworthy? I thought he was going to be their star witness and discrediting him was Trump's team goal?

All in all this is basically going to come down to does the jury believe somehow the convicted perjurer elaborate story I'm sure he'll tell that Trump told him verbally to set up this eleaborate scheme without any evidence other than his word which will be coming from a documented hater of Trump who's made it clear his goal is to ruin him. If not 1 juror sees through this child like charade, the ny jury pool is more biased and ignorant that even imaginable.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Quote:

---

Why would the prosecution be attempting to make Cohen look dislikeable and not trustworthy? I thought he was going to be their star witness and discrediting him was Trump's team goal?

All in all this is basically going to come down to does the jury believe somehow the convicted perjurer elaborate story I'm sure he'll tell that Trump told him verbally to set up this eleaborate scheme without any evidence other than his word which will be coming from a documented hater of Trump who's made it clear his goal is to ruin him. If not 1 juror sees through this child like charade, the ny jury pool is more biased and ignorant that even imaginable.

---

This is the reason trial attorneys don't like lawyers on their juries. They tend to carry more weight in the jury room during deliberations. Other jurors look to them to resolve lingering questions they may have, instead of sending questions to the judge.

As I have said before, when the state has a problematical witness that they know the defense will attack on cross, it is considered better practice to bring it up first so the jury doesn't think the state was hiding something from them. It's called drawing the sting, a type of advance rehabilitation as when the defense does attack that weakness, jury has already heard it and is not as surprised.

That's the theory, at least. Here, I think the state went overboard in drawing the sting starting with opening statements and continuing on through direct exam of their own witnesses. Not one of them has had anything nice to say about Cohen. Even his own banker testified he was assigned to cohen's accounts because he could "be firm" with difficult customers and that was the nicest thing said. But the state were the ones eliciting that evidence during direct exam...in detail. Touch on it lightly to draw the sting and then move on is the better practice.

Which leads me to the question as to why they chose to bring all of those emails into evidence between various people and Cohen? Trump has never used email. He is not on any of those email chains. But once the state opened that door, all of them would come in under the doctrine of completeness which prevents cherry picking. But without the emails, there would be a hearsay issue with the witnesses testifying as to the contents of those emails and since Trump was not on any of them there isn't prior inconsistent statements exception. From a trial strategy standpoint, a conundrum.

Of course in my view, even taking this to trial on such a weak case is perplexing. The state's narrative about Trump trying to hide improper campaign activity to steal the 2016 election with actions done in 2017 after he was sworn in, is nonsensical.

The biggest BOOM was when Keith Davidson was pressing Cohen about being late on the Stormy payment, Cohen said he was not able to reach Trump while he was campaigning those days (October 2016) and that Cohen said he would, "just handle it himself." Davidson also said he wasn't sure Cohen even had been authorized by Trump to do anything regarding Stormy. This was after Trump's supposed long term bestie David Pecker had given a hard no to AMI having anything to do with Stormy.

Even Stormy's media agent, Gina Rodriuez, called Cohen an A-hole in her email exchanges with Davidson.

Why did Trump get involved with a sleeze bag like Cohen in the first place?

In reply to MagnumLoad

MagnumLoad said:

---

Why did Trump get involved with a sleeze bag like Cohen in the first place?

---

NYC politics most likely. Roy Cohn, Roger Stone. Trump's orbit has included some doozies in the past but sadly such is the way if one is doing business there. One hand washes the other. Who you know.

Among other things, Cohen was heavily involved with taxi medallions, a notoriously scummy insiders only business in NY in the days before rideshare companies.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

Why did Trump get involved with a sleeze bag like Cohen in the first place?

---

NYC politics most likely. Roy Cohn, Roger Stone. Trump's orbit has included some doozies in the past but sadly such is the way if one is doing business there. One hand washes the other. Who you know.

Among other things, Cohen was heavily involved with taxi medallions, a notoriously scummy insiders only business in NY in the days before rideshare companies.

---

It has always seemed that if you want to be successful in New York, you eventually have to deal with some shady characters. Not sure how many successful folks in NY who operate with a solid moral compass, but I am betting it is a minority.

In reply to We fixed the keg

Quote:

---

It has always seemed that if you want to be successful in New York, you eventually have to deal with some shady characters. Not sure how many successful folks in NY who operate with a solid moral compass, but I am betting it is a minority.

---

Being a big fan of the show Billions there was an episode wherein Chuck was in private practice and had a wealthy client who wanted a gun permit. After making a run at getting it with no success, Wendy tells him to focus on what the people he needs to sign off on that want, who can provide that, find out what they want, who could provide that and so on. Chuck spends a day and then some running across town to get them all lined up and "fed" their demanded items. Parking pass, tickets to an exclusive sports party, making a son's parking tickets disappear, etc. Everyone had their hands out for something, not always about money as much as solving a problem, providing a status item or invitation, etc.

It was an entertaining episode for the former SDNY and state AG no longer being the power broker but instead the supplicant to other power brokers. At the same time very telling as a dramatized telling of how things work in NYC.

Roy Cohn was such a power broker back in the day and taught Trump that game.

In reply to aggiehawg Absolutely LOVED that show with Bobby Axelrod as the lead, not so much the episodes with Mike Prince. Remember the episode you speak of and it summed up everything I have thought about NY power brokers nicely.

In reply to We fixed the keg

We fixed the keg said:

---

Absolutely LOVED that show with Bobby Axelrod as the lead, not so much the episodes with Mike Prince. Remember the episode you speak of and it summed up everything I have thought about NY power brokers nicely.

---

Agree about the Mike Prince character lacking the charm and fun of Bobby. But behind the scenes Damien Lewis' wife died and he needed time off. There was no recasting him so they pivoted to the Mike Prince storyline.

But during even those seasons with Prince as the main character he had some azz-kissing he neded to do as well when he was tying to get the Olympics.

There are stories about spin off shows being in the works, though.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

Why did Trump get involved with a sleeze bag like Cohen in the first place?

---

NYC politics most likely. Roy Cohn, Roger Stone. Trump's orbit has included some doozies in the past but sadly such is the way if one is doing business there. One hand washes the other. Who you know.

Among other things, Cohen was heavily involved with taxi medallions, a notoriously scummy insiders only business in NY in the days before rideshare companies.

---

I imagine also when you are as rich and powerful as Trump it can be difficult initially judge someone's character and intentions. I'm sure swindlers are lined up left and right to people that powerful and suck up to the extreme to make themselves look really good to someone with power.

In reply to Gyles Marrett

Gyles Marrett said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

Why did Trump get involved with a sleeze bag like Cohen in the first place?

---

NYC politics most likely. Roy Cohn, Roger Stone. Trump's orbit has included some doozies in the past but sadly such is the way if one is doing business there. One hand washes the other. Who you know.

Among other things, Cohen was heavily involved with taxi medallions, a notoriously scummy insiders only business in NY in the days before rideshare companies.

---

I imagine also when you are as rich and powerful as Trump it can be difficult initially judge someone's character and intentions. I'm sure swindlers are lined up left and right to people that powerful and suck up to the extreme to make themselves look really good to someone with power.

---

Still, even Trump will have use for a "fixer" to cut through some red tape, knows who to call and which type of leverage works with them on a lot of different levels.

But a lawyer that records their conversations with their clients, without that client's knowledge and assent, is planning something and have made the decision it might prove very lucrative at some point.

Quote:

---

Of course in my view, even taking this to trial on such a weak case is perplexing. The state's narrative about Trump trying to hide improper campaign activity to steal the 2016 election with actions done in 2017 after he was sworn in, is nonsensical.

---

My guess is they want to tie him up in court instead of out campaigning and also getting the Stormy stuff back in the headlines. With a Manhattan jury they probably also figure a fair chance of getting a conviction despite how weak and worthless the case is and then Trump has a felony on his record.

In reply to 4stringAg

4stringAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Of course in my view, even taking this to trial on such a weak case is perplexing. The state's narrative about Trump trying to hide improper campaign activity to steal the 2016 election with actions done in 2017 after he was sworn in, is nonsensical.

---

My guess is they want to tie him up in court instead of out campaigning and also getting the Stormy stuff back in the headlines. With a Manhattan jury they probably also figure a fair chance of getting a conviction despite how weak and worthless the case is and then Trump has a felony on his record.

---

Bragg's case was not supposed to be the first criminal case to go to trial when they berated him into filing it.

But the way in which they stacked the charges on each accounting ledger entry for the same transaction was too limited and simple a case to get bogged down in the pretrial proceedings like the DC, Florida and Georgia cases are. And those delays in those cases are all the fault of the prosecutors filing very large and unwieldy cases not to have pretrial delays with issues going up on appeal.

I have to say for how closely coordinated all of these case have been filed, the people coordinating them are not very smart not to have anticipated those delays and either file earlier or heavily curate their cases before filing them.