Michael Cohens Idiots Hurt Case Against Trump

[ad_1]

Shhh. Image: MEGA/GC Images

As we move into the second week of watching the Donald Trumpindictment, the questions are mounting. Will it really happen? Did last week’s testimony from attorney Robert Costello in Trump’s defense successfully throw a wrench in the process? Does Monday’s testimony from David Pecker the former National Enquirer publisher who helped arrange hush payments to Stormy Daniels who appears to be at the center of a prospective prosecution mean the case is back on track for a perfect? And what exactly is the holdup?

The answers to these questions are hard to come by at the moment as they are fascinating, but one thing has become clear: The main witness Michael Cohen and his pathological need for media attention are not making things any easier. for the Manhattan district attorneys office in recent weeks.

Trump’s former lawyer has always been a curious figure in this saga. He pleaded guilty to numerous criminal charges during the Trump administration, including lying to Congress, lying to a bank, tax evasion, and campaign-finance violations based in large part on his role paying Daniels in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign. . Cooperating witnesses in criminal prosecutions often have baggage, but the way prosecutors generally try to deal with this is by forcing them to admit responsibility for their own criminal offenses and corroborating as much of their testimony as possible through independent sources of evidence, including other witnesses and documents.

Cohen, however, presents additional challenges. He clearly thinks too highly of himself and seems to have little awareness of his limitations which is a toxic combination in both life and the law. Constitutionally, he appears incapable of telling the same story twice in the same way, though whether that is a function of malice, dishonesty, or some other factor is not entirely clear. He is also obsessed with bringing down his former boss Trump, and has managed to make a second career out of it both through his podcast and his countless appearances on cable news, which have been crucial to maintaining his popularity. in public.

Cohens voluminous record of public statements has always been a problem for prosecutors because it creates the risk that he could be confronted with inconsistent or problematic past statements at trial to undermine his credibility. That danger was on full display in what was supposed to be the final episode leading, finally, to charges against Cohens arch nemesis. In fact, Cohen has said at least two things in recent interviews that would normally raise red flags for prosecutors working with a key witness who cooperates first, that the cooperator is unwilling to take full responsibility for of his prior criminal behavior and, secondly, that even now he is unwilling or unable to be frank about inconvenient facts.

Take, for example, an interview with Cohen conducted by CNNs Don Lemon. It was styled as Cohens first televised appearance following the conclusion of his grand-jury testimony, which, in itself, almost certainly sent prosecutors in the Manhattan DAs office into a frenzy. Ideally, a key cooperator in a high-profile criminal case would not speak to the press at all on this point, if at all.

However, that was not the end of it. At one point in the discussion, Cohen touched on his criminal convictions but suggested that he had in fact been unfairly prosecuted. One of the things that I think will come out of this investigation, Cohen told Lemon, other than the potential indictment of Donald Trump, is a lot of information about how the Southern District of New York dealt with me in my particular case. . Referring to his current attorney, Lanny Davis, Cohen added, He has so much information about the Justice Department’s weapon against me that no one else knows the story.

Lemon didn’t seem to register what Cohen was saying in the moment and moved on, but this was the most interesting and potentially consequential thing Cohen said during the sit-down. What exactly does he mean? Davis, for his part, seemed to support Cohen last week in an interview with Politico, recalling that at one point in the history of his dealings with his client Michael was upset because he was, I think, being mistreated. of law enforcement in the Southern District, and prosecuted.

One interpretation of these comments is that Cohen does not really believe he should have been criminally prosecuted and does not believe he should plead guilty to the litany of federal offenses that now make up his criminal history. If that’s the case, it’s hard to understate how much of a problem that would be for his credibility and for prosecutors. Either he committed the offenses in question and accepted responsibility for them, a basic requirement for a very important cooperating witness, or he was unfairly trained and forced to plead guilty despite being innocent in some or all of the charges. He can’t have it both ways, and there’s no way the Trumps’ lawyers, in a trial setting, are going to let it slide.

Cohens slippage was shown elsewhere during the discussion. He described his willingness to cooperate with the Manhattan DAs office as reflecting his newfound commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and said he told the federal judge who sentenced him that he would work to help the government. Cohen told Lemon that he did not seek a cooperation agreement (to protect his legal interests in the future) when he was dealing with the Justice Department in his own criminal case, a sign of his own good will. faith and public-mindedness.

He left out an important fact, however: The reason he didn’t have a cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors was because they didn’t really believe Cohen was fully cooperating with their investigation. The sticking point is that Cohen does not agree to disclose to them any criminal behavior that they have not discovered a requirement for cooperation with the Southern District of New York (although not all prosecutor’s offices).

As the New York Times reported at the time, prosecutors made it clear to the presiding judge that Mr. Cohen was of little use in their investigation because he would not fully cooperate, therefore he would not reap benefits, such as a government letter on his behalf advocating for a reduced sentence. If Cohen had actually cooperated, prosecutors told the sentencing judge, it could have been fruitful, but because he didn’t, the government couldn’t fully examine his criminal history and assess his usefulness as a witness. This is important not only because it undermines Cohens claim that he is fully committed to cooperating with the government and not only because it will almost certainly come up if Cohen is ever investigated but also because of his unwillingness to be fully Lemon’s frankness about what happened seems to reflect a deeper, more problematic relationship with reality.

In another appearance on Ari Melbers MSNBC show, Cohen offered Trump’s lawyers more ammunition in the future. At one point in the discussion, Melber played a clip of Trump attorney Joe Tacopina trying to discredit Cohen at length by immediately referring to Cohen’s misconduct with the medallions and all that stuff. Cohen began his response to Melber by saying, Shame on Joe Tacopina. First and foremost, there is no cheating with medallions. I don’t even know what he’s talking about.

Here’s a good guess: Tacopina is probably referring to the fact that Cohen pleaded guilty to tax evasion in connection with the millions of dollars in income he received through the taxi medallions he obtained. The behavior was the basis for five of the federal charges against him, making it hard to believe that he didn’t know what Tacopina was talking about. (Again, if Cohen really maintains his innocence on those counts, that would be very bad for the case against Trump.)

Cohen also took aim at Costello, who apparently served briefly as a legal adviser to Cohen. The two now appear to dispute the extent of their relationship, but Costello was allowed to testify before a grand jury about his dealings with Cohen as a result of an agreement Cohen struck to waive any attorney-client privilege between the two. man Cohen told Melber he had no recollection of such an agreement. If in fact I have waived the attorney-client privilege, I want to know when, how, where. I don’t remember waiving anything. Later that evening, Costello presented a copy of the agreement with the Cohens’ signature in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

The likelihood that the waiver was some kind of fabrication, even before Costello presented the document on live television, is extremely low, regardless of what one might think of Costello himself. The reason is that prosecutors in the Manhattan DAs office are treading on ethically problematic ground if they allow an attorney to violate his privilege with a former client without evidence that their dealings furthered a crime or fraud, which not suspected here.

It is unclear whether or to what extent Cohens comments or questions about his credibility in general may have played any role in the apparent delay in the Trump proceedings. Prosecutors may have already reconciled themselves to the notion that Cohen is both central to their prospective case and that he will continue to be a nuisance until the trial ends, one way or another, years from now. . However, it would undoubtedly be better for the case if Cohen could force himself to stop talking for the foreseeable future, even if he appears to be financially, emotionally, and psychologically incapable of exercising some of the necessary restraint. to oneself.

Sign Up for the IntelligencerNewsletter

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology that shape our world.

Vox Media, LLC Terms and Privacy Notice

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

[ad_2]