1. it’s not about guilt. the central question is why did Trump agree to handle the transaction like they did. to influence the election OR save himself from embarrassment. unless Cohen can prove that Trump specifically did it to influence the election, Trump walks. if I were on the jury, I wouldn’t believe either and wouldn’t convict.

  1. The difference with Cohen lying under oath, is the he was lying at the DIRECT INSTRUCTION of the person who was the POTUS at the time. To me, that makes all the difference in his credibility.

  2. Could you imagine the GOP outrage if a Democratic president paid hush money to a porn star?!? It’d be the biggest scandal in history.

    1. let’s say that Cohen was the star witness and the person he was accusing was Biden/Sanders or whoever you think should be POTUS. would you consider him trustworthy then? not for me.

  3. Given the Cohen did time for this and Trump ordered it, how does he avoid responsibility? I guess some people are more equal than others.

    1. That’s the reality of life my friend. .. that’s part of the reason why Putin won’t be arrested by the ICC after issuance of a warrant.

  4. This is the case of two Criminals/Co-conspirators (Michael Cohen and Don the Con). The fact that Michael Cohen has already been convicted would not render his testimony as being invalid !!! The testimony of Co-Conspirator is often the most important factor in convicting his accomplice.

    1. ​@gary quarty In most states, a tape recording is legal as long as it’s done with a warrant, or one of the parties agreed to the recording. A law enforcement wiretap is supposed to require a warrant, but that isn’t the case here. As Michael Cohen can come into court and verify the recording and when and where it was recorded, it wont be considered hearsay, and the tape(s) can be admitted in court.

  5. It certainly won’t help the case if the press starts parroting the nonsense argument of “I have committed these crimes a long time ago”….

    1. Elie Hoenig is just a plain waste of time with no credible argument for his position on this issue. Nick Akerman towers above him in knowledge of the law, experience and intellect. Clearly Elie is feeling insecure in this clip…as he should… due to his inferiority in this situation. Even Don Lemon is a better debater.

    2. @just empower No he’s pointing out there is an actual statute of limitations on these types of alleged crimes which is 5 years.

  6. The case is from so long a time. How many people in jail would wish to be freed with such an argument.

  7. He may have already been indicted or been told officially that it’s coming. Latest rant seems to be screaming his innocence in desperate ugliness, which is his MO.

  8. There are two ways to interpret “maybe he gets hit by a truck.”

    One read is that it is business jargon for identifying dependence on an important person and considering backup plans in the case where they become unavailable, for any reason. The other more insidious possibility of “getting hit by a truck” is that it is a euphemism for eliminating a knowledgeable person so damaging information never comes out. As I re-listened to this recording today, former President Trump is sounding more threatening than he did originally.

    1. astute posting, let us meet evil with strength and the truth. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

  9. The jury can if it were in Oklahoma, Texas, red states, etc, not in SDNY. They know Trump and his criminal history and how he made a nuisance to the courts by filing frivolous lawsuits to avoid paying for his crimes. They know he moved to Maralago because of his activities in NY, which is another way of dodging justice.

    1. @Bitchslapper316 not quite, when Cy Vance left office the new DA Bragg paused the investigation, dismissed that grand jury and re-evaluated the evidence.

      The potential indictment here is from SDNY and is related to the same matter. It means DA Bragg has decided there is a case after he reviewed the evidence

    2. @Ian B No that’s not right at all. You don’t even know what the SDNY is and neither does the OP of this comment. The SDNY is the U.S attorneys office for the southern district of New York. It’s the largest and most well resourced prosecutor office in the world behind main DOJ. They’re federal prosecutors under the department of justice.

      Vance was and Bragg is with the Manhattan district attorney. Local prosecutors not federal.

      The SDNY investigated this case already, they’re the ones that put Cohen in prison and decided not to charge DT.

      What Vance was investigating before Bragg had nothing to do with “Hush money payments”. He was investigating business fraud.

  10. Nick is so done with Elie’s nonsense.
    Just quit speculating and get indicting.
    Like Nick says it’s within the statute so hold the criminals accountable.

  11. Serious question, if company funds were fraudulently booked as an expense to cover a personal use, how is this not an embezzlement case and/or tax fraud case?

    1. This is a misdemeanor case at the moment – mislabeled a business deal on purpose. All these legal experts say its a weak case. Other cases are stronger. I hope people’s wish for him to get prosecuted doesn’t backfire if the weakest charge happens first

  12. I’m with the old lawyer on this argument. I think if Cohen co es across as truthful and a changed man, the jurors will see him as a truthful witness.

  13. I’m with Nick Ackerman on this, age before beauty. He knows what he’s talking about, & any bs by tfg’s legal team isn’t going to work.

  14. “I had my employee carry out a crime for me. That is beyond doubt. He went to jail for doing so. I was named as ‘Individual 1″ in the case as the instigator and beneficiary. I’m innocent.”
    US Ju$stice System: “You have money and connections, therefore we agree with you.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.