Politics OFFICIAL AROUND THE TRUMP LEGAL DRAMA: APRIL 2024

So much going on it's hard to keep up so let's see if this works, lol.

 

Trump attorneys trolled after they subpoena wrong Jeremy Rosenberg for hush money trial: ‘I’m keeping the $15’
Mr Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche made the embarrassing mistake when he was trying to subpoena former District Attorney Supervising Rackets Investigator Jeremy Rosenberg in March


Donald Trump’s lawyers have been trolled by a random man in Brooklyn after they subpoenaed him by mistake for the former president’s hush money trial.

In a filing from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office on Tuesday, prosecutors revealed that Mr Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche had tried to subpoena former District Attorney Supervising Rackets Investigator Jeremy Rosenberg in March, to seek files related to the Republican presidential candidate’s former lawyer Michael Cohen.


However, it transpired that Mr Blanche made an embarrassing mistake – sending the subpoena to a man from Brooklyn also called Jeremy Rosenberg.


While the man shares the same name as the former DA’s office investigator, he has zero connection to the criminal case against the former president.

Following the blunder, Mr Rosenberg decided to have a bit of fun with Mr Trump’s attorneys – and told them he’d be keeping the money they sent him.

“I don’t have any files for you,” the apparently bemused Brooklynite wrote back, according to a filing from the former president’s legal team.


He added: “PS - The phone number you provided was disconnected.

“PPS - I’m keeping the fifteen dollars,” he added, referencing the money Mr Trump’s lawyers had sent him to help pay for sending the documents.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-subpoena-b2526304.html?utm_source=reddit.com

 

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg sentenced for perjury

Less than a year after he was released from jail, former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg is heading back.

Weisselberg was sentenced Wednesday to five months in New York City's Rikers Island jail complex, in line with a plea agreement reached with prosecutors over perjury he committed in a 2023 civil fraud case.

Weisselberg pleaded guilty in March to two felony counts of perjury. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office said he admitted to giving false testimony regarding the size of former President Donald Trump's triplex apartment in New York during a July deposition.

Prosecutors initially charged Weisselberg with three additional counts of perjury, but their agreement allowed him to avoid pleading guilty to those charges.

One of those initial counts was related to false sworn testimony on May 12, 2023, in a discovery deposition. The other two counts stemmed from Weisselberg's October 10, 2023, testimony in his civil fraud trial, in which he and longtime former boss Donald Trump were found liable for fraud and other related allegations.

...

A timeline of perjury
On April 19, 2023, Weisselberg was released from a five month jail sentence after 100 days, for good behavior.

Thirty-two days later, on May 21, he committed perjury during a deposition, according to the Manhattan District Attorney.

On July 17 — 55 days later — he did it again, he admits.

And then again 87 days later, on Oct. 12, while on the stand in his civil fraud case, according to prosecutors.

Now Weisselberg has once again been sentenced to five months in jail.

He will be eligible for release in 100 days, with good behavior.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/allen-weisselberg-perjury-sentencing-trump-organization-cfo/

 

I think it might have been more fun to have a lawyer write them back to say 'my client has received the subpoena and intends to comply fully. He believes he has information about Michael Cohen that will be of interest to the court'. And then continue to string them along until the last minute, then send them a copy of Cohen's congressional testimony and some news stories about Cohen, etc.

barfo

 

Michael Cohen on the Trump Trial: Prepare To Be Surprised


Michael Cohen may be the only person standing between Donald Trump and jail.


Three of Trump’s four criminal trials — the ones in Washington, Florida and Georgia — seem hopelessly stalled. But on Monday in New York, the “hush money” case is set to begin. And Cohen is the star witness — the man who paid Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Trump. Trump then reimbursed Cohen and, as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges in his 34-count indictment, falsified records about those payments to “conceal criminal activity.”

Trump’s defense is simple: You can’t trust Cohen.

So what does Cohen have to say on the eve of the first criminal trial of a former president, someone who happens to be his one-time boss and mentor?

A lot.

I talked to Cohen on Thursday for this week’s episode of Playbook Deep Dive just after he had learned that Trump had attacked him on Truth Social, possibly violating a gag order that Cohen says must finally be enforced.

Together, we discussed how he will defend the assault on his credibility at the trial, why Bragg’s case is stronger than analysts believe, the legal tactics he’s expecting from Trump’s team, whether he ever regrets breaking with Trump and what Daniels’ tarot cards predicted about the outcome of the case.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

I’ve heard you say that people are wrong when they say that this is the weakest of the four cases against Trump. Tell me if I’ve got that right?

What I’ve said consistently is that for whatever the reason might be, the American public treats these four indictments like it’s the Kentucky Derby. Everybody’s handicapping and picking and choosing which one is the most offensive and violative of law.

I will concede right now that the January 6th insurrection is more grotesque in terms of illegal behavior than this specific case — campaign finance, hush money, we’ll call it business record fraud. That’s what I prefer to call it: the “business record fraud” case.

Then you have the failure to return top-secret documents, showing them to people who do not have proper clearance to see [and] that places America’s national security in jeopardy. Yes, that is more abusive towards the law than the campaign finance-business record fraud case. And I will even turn around and say that the Fani Willis case — attempting to overturn a free and fair election [in Georgia] — is more of a grotesque abuse of the law than the Alvin Bragg case. Nevertheless, the campaign finance — the business record fraud — is a crime, and if it was you or anybody else, they would already have been indicted, the case would have already proceeded and chances are they would have already been convicted and sentenced.

Trump’s defense is going to be to paint you as an untrustworthy witness. He’s going to cite your guilty plea for lying to Congress, and the fact that the Justice Department declined to offer you a cooperation deal because prosecutors thought you lied to them. And he’ll say you’re out for revenge and that you have a financial incentive to see him convicted. So how do you defend yourself from those accusations?

I wish that when people state that “you lied to Congress,” that you’d do me the courtesy — do yourself the courtesy — of finishing the sentence. What is the sentence? That I had done that, really, for the benefit of Donald J. Trump. And that lie centered around the number of times that I had stated that I spoke to Donald about the failed Trump Tower Moscow real estate project — in conjunction with other lawyers Jay Sekulow, Abbe Lowell, Ty Cobb, with other individuals like Alan Garten or Ivanka [Trump] and Jared [Kushner]. Everybody worked on that statement. I was just the fool who went ahead and read it into the record and submitted it. But what benefit did I have in terms of saying three times versus 10? That’s the lie: That I claimed to have spoken to Donald three times about the failed Trump Tower Moscow real estate project, when the true answer was 10.

I appreciate you putting it in context. With these other accusations, is that the way you approach it: You put those things in context for the jury so that they understand them, and what sounds like a dramatic allegation can be defanged?

Absolutely. There is a ton of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation that has been put out there by Trump and acolytes literally since the Steele dossier. We all know that the Steele dossier was completely inaccurate, as it related to me. I don’t even talk about any of the other allegations raised in that garbage document.

I remember when we were all asking you if you went to …

I’ve never been to the Czech Republic. I’ve never been to Prague. As soon as I had gotten out of Otisville [Correctional Facility], I was contemplating on going there and taking photos and tweeting out: “Glad to be back in Prague.”

Credibility is one part of this trial. The other c-word that comes up is “corroboration.” And that’s something that you and Lanny Davis, your adviser and attorney, talk about a lot: that there will be corroboration. What can you tell us about that? Is this a stronger case when it comes to corroboration than people understand on the outside?

If it wasn’t, Alvin Bragg and his team of prosecutors would never have brought this case.

Do you think we’ll be surprised by it — by some of the corroborating evidence?

I do.

Okay. In other words: We don’t know everything that’s going to be presented?

In fact, most people don’t really know anything. They only know what the headlines have been. And as you know very, very well, headlines do not necessarily tell the story.

One of the big obstacles seems to be how Bragg connects the misdemeanor of falsifying business records that recorded what were actually hush money payments — the payments to you to reimburse you for the payments to Stormy Daniels — to another crime that Trump was trying to commit, which then makes this a felony. That’s sort of the gist of the case. Do you think Bragg has strong evidence on that portion of the case?

Let me say it to you this way — it may not be satisfying to you, and I do certainly appreciate the attempts to drill down despite me telling you I cannot go into into this case: Alvin Bragg would not have brought this case — he would not have that as an element of this case — if he did not believe that he would be able to prove this at trial to a jury of 12.

Michael, your case may end up being the only case that goes to trial this year — meaning that you are the key witness that will determine whether Donald Trump goes to jail before the 2024 election. What is it like having that sort of weight on your shoulders?

It’s a heavy weight. It’s a weight that is difficult, on a daily basis, to carry around. I wish I wasn’t involved in this at all. Not that I don’t want to see accountability; it is incredibly taxing on your heart, on your mind and on your soul. I can tell you from a physical and a health standpoint, since this all started coming down, I’m down 22 pounds.

You look great, by the way.

I look horrible. I’m at the same weight now that I was at when I was released from the 51 days of solitary confinement as a result of an unconstitutional remand against me, weaponized by [then-Attorney General] Bill Barr and Trump to go against his critics. So it’s just a side note to those people who don’t believe what Donald says, whether it’s during these rallies or these ridiculous statements that he makes. Trust me: I’ve been there. I know what he’s intending to do, and he’s not bluffing.

Let me just be clear about this, because I think there’s some people who think that solitary confinement is a form of torture and should be banned: When you say “solitary confinement,” describe what you mean and what that was like.

I was put into a cell that is approximately eight feet by 10 feet, and it is a toilet, a sink, a locker, a bed and a chair with a desk that’s attached to the wall. And you sit there for 24 hours, seven days a week. It’s not like you see in “Shawshank Redemption” or any of those movies where you’re out in the yard and able to shoot hoops for an hour. Every now and then, they let you go grab your meal, but then you come right back. The only time you were out was Monday, Wednesday and Friday for 15 minutes to take a shower, or twice a week for a five-minute phone call to your family. My cell was by far the worst of all. The window was broken. It was missing a piece of plate glass. When it would rain, it would rain in on me. During the day, it’s about 100-plus degrees, 105 degrees in that cell, with no ventilation. The flies would come in. The sink was broken. The toilets were broken. The facility in and of itself was filthy. That’s what solitary confinement was for me.

Based on what you know about Trump, what do you think a second Trump term would be like?

In 2018, when I testified before the House Oversight Committee, I predicted before anybody that my biggest fear was that if Donald loses the 2020 election, that there will never be a peaceful transfer of power. Those were my words in 2018. And sadly, it became a reality.

I’m going to give you my next prediction: If, God forbid a million times, Donald wins the election in 2024, there will never be another election again in America. Because Donald believes, like Putin, that it doesn’t matter who you vote for; all that matters is who’s counting the vote. So there might be this impression of an election, but it will never be a legitimate election ever again. He has no intention of being another one-term president. This, for him, is presidency for life.

On the flip side of that, if this prosecution is successful and ends with jail time, what do you think that would do to the country? And do you think that’s a real possibility — that Donald Trump could end up in jail based on this case?

That’s up to the 12 jurors and of course, to the way that both prosecutors handle the case and defense is able to represent Trump on his position. I can’t tell you what will happen or what won’t happen. I’m not the great Carnac; I don’t have the crystal ball.

I don’t believe that Trump is going to win this election. I believe that as a result of his taking credit for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, he has angered a group of America — specifically women in America and those men that support women for women’s reproductive rights — and I think that that’s just one of the very stupid things that Trump, the GOP, MAGA, has done.

Do you think Trump wants to testify?

I think he’d like you to believe that he would.

It would be worse than the deposition he gave at the E. Jean Carroll trial case, where he couldn’t even recognize that E. Jean Carroll was not his ex-wife, Marla Maples. Donald does not know how to tell the truth. He’s lied so many times that he cannot keep track of the lies. And one lie begets another lie. He would be putting himself into a perjury trap by taking the stand.

He’d be a horrible witness. You guys would all enjoy it because it would give you so much to talk about. “Saturday Night Live” would pay Donald to get up on the witness stand; they wouldn’t have to write anything for then maybe the next three, four episodes.

Give us a sense, on the eve of this trial that starts on Monday, just mentally where you are and how you’re preparing for this.

Well, my preparation is really just looking over some of the old testimony that I had given. Remember: It goes back to 2018. So it’s really just more of a review. My story has not changed. It’s just very repetitive.

I’m not the defendant in this case. The defendant in this case is the former president, Donald J. Trump. So what does he do? He starts to attack. And despite the gag orders that have been put on by the judges, he nevertheless continues to do what he wants. He will say whatever he wants. He violates the gag order. And like a petulant child, there appears to be no repercussion. He legitimately just posted something calling me a sleazebag. And of course, he attacked Stormy Daniels as well. It’s called witness intimidation and obstruction of justice.

Will you be asking the court for sanctions and for the judge to enforce his gag order, which does allow for sanctions?

I don’t have the right to make that call. That call has to be made by the prosecutors.

I don’t want to testify. I have been extremely clear about it. I have already testified before the Mueller team. I’ve testified before seven congressional committees. I’ve testified to the New York attorney general. I’ve been part of grand jury indictments. You know, now I’m supposed to again testify before the Manhattan D.A. case. I’m not asking to be a witness, let alone be referred to as a “key” witness. I am a non-party subpoenaed witness. My intention is to comply with this subpoena, though I would prefer not to.

Fair. Do you want Bragg to ask Judge Merchan to enforce it, after Trump attacked you?

Well, I think they should — specifically so as to ensure that the case, once it starts on Monday, operates in a respectful manner and one that does not place witnesses — myself included — in harm’s way.

You’re ready to testify Monday morning, but you just don’t know yet when they’re going to call you?

There’s no chance in the world that I’m testifying on Monday. The process starts with what’s called voir dire. That’s where they’re going to impanel the 12 jurors with the two alternates.

They are going to pull out every stop they can to try to demonstrate to the judge that they can not get a fair jury — that they can not get a fair trial here in New York. And that way, somewhere down the road, they’re going to once again make another motion claiming that they need for Judge Merchan to be recused, that they need the venue to be changed because Donald is afforded, under the Constitution, the right to a fair trial. That’s their next move. It will not work.

Let’s say 30 days is what it will ultimately be before the jury gets impaneled. I’m not even expected to be one of the first witnesses. I’ll probably be more like in baseball: clean-up. I’ll be like a fourth or fifth batter. They’re going to keep me on that stand for as long as they possibly can, trying to discredit me. So that way, they can use that to try to make a case during appeal, why this case should not stand, and have it overturned.

You and Stormy Daniels have struck up an unlikely friendship after all you went through. And I know that she’s done tarot card readings for you. Did she do a tarot card reading about this case?

She did do a tarot card reading for me when she was on my “Mea Culpa” podcast. I don’t specifically remember all of the things that she said, but she turned around and she said that the cards show that Donald will be held accountable.

The jury questionnaire had a question that asks the jurors, “Have you ever listened to any podcasts by or read any books by Michael Cohen?” Suggesting that this is going to be a little bit of an issue. Do you ever regret your sort of media empire that you’ve built? Do you think it has complicated this case?

Well, I appreciate you calling it an empire. Am I upset about the fact that I have done as much media as I have? Absolutely not. Because if it’s not me who’s speaking and trying to inform the country — not just Democrats, but Republicans and most importantly, the independents, the undecideds — if it’s not me, who is it going to be?

The easiest thing for me to have done early on, when all of this mishegoss was going down in my life, would have been to keep my mouth shut. I probably would have been the first person that Donald pardoned. And I’d probably be working for Fox News, Newsmax. I’d be the head of the RNC, probably, with Lara Trump, or something stupid like that. But I would be putting America’s democracy — I’d be putting my children’s future and your children’s future — in jeopardy. And I wasn’t going to do that.

I can’t tell you the number of fellow inmates that would say to me all the time: “Why didn’t you just keep your fucking mouth shut? Keep your mouth shut, you’d be the first one pardoned. You would be working right now making millions of dollars with the Republican Party. Instead, you keep fighting him.”

In the back of your mind, do you ever think this really wasn’t worth it?

I think about everything. I think about the day that Donald asked me to come to work for him. I didn’t need to work for him. I was semi-retired. I was 39. I was set; I got lucky early on. I was finally getting a chance to enjoy time with my wife, my children. Unfortunately, I’d just come off of a terrible health issue that almost took my life. And so being sort of sedate, I was looking for something that would have given me some activity that would spark my entrepreneurial spirit again. I like to be busy. And Donald, when he made that offer to me, fit that exact set of parameters.

That was 2007. He made me one of the three members of the board of Miss Universe. It was Donald, Allen Weisselberg and me — that’s not the greatest of company. I was co-president of Trump Productions; he had the number-one TV show at the time. I was working on real estate projects, including one … where we would have built an entire city, literally right before entering New York through the tunnel, with 10,000 apartments. I was given this great responsibility: I was personal attorney to Donald J. Trump. And he was not the Donald Trump that you see today. Donald today is the worst version of himself imaginable.

Explain that transition. What do you think has made him more of a caricature of himself in terms of the way that you’re describing him?

Power. The old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”? That should be written on his epitaph one day.

You’ve talked about and written that it was Jared Kushner and Don Jr. that convinced Trump to throw you under the bus. What would have happened if he hadn’t listened?

Chances are he may not be in the position that he’s in right now because I may not have come clean. I may not have provided the information. I may not have been able to emotionally break away from the cult and acknowledge — despite the ongoing continuous harassment of my wife, my daughter and my son — that I need to snap out of this, that your loyalty belongs to us and the country.

Who do you think Donald Trump will pick as his VP?

Guaranteed it’ll be a woman, because he is right now so deep down into the dumpster when it comes to women that he needs to show that he’s not the sexist misogynist that he is. And I think if he could find a woman of color, that would be better. But he won’t do it. I see somebody like a Nancy Mace or maybe even [Sen. Katie] Britt, because of their looks.

That’s important to Donald Trump?

Very, very. He believes in optics. It’s almost like why he would walk and he’d have Hope Hicks right by his side, shoulder to shoulder. He believes that everyone is sort of as mentally corrupt as he is, and he’s visual. So like with “The Apprentice,” him coming off the helicopter with 30 beautiful women following behind him? He thinks it makes him look bigger and more important.

So I do believe it will be a woman. I believe that, in his mind, he will consider her to be attractive. He also needs somebody who will not outshine him. That’s why somebody like a Nikki Haley could never be the choice. She’s too strong a person and she would suck up some of his oxygen in the room. And for Donald, owning all the oxygen in the room is what he constantly needs. It’s what keeps him going.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/12/michael-cohen-trump-trial-surprise-00151868

 

Judge accuses Trump of trying to intimidate juror called to clarify 'anti-Trump' posts

Donald Trump was accused by Justice Juan Merchan of intimidating a juror who was called in to clarify the defense's claims of alleged "anti-Trump" Facebook posts.

The judge told Trump's attorney Todd Blanche that Trump was uttering something to the juror who was "12 feet away from your client."

"Your client was audibly uttering something," the judge said, "I don't know what he was uttering..."

He then offered a stiff warning: "I won’t tolerate that. I won’t have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I will be crystal clear."

The flareup came after Blanche challenged Juror No. 1 for cause because he claimed that the woman had made two Facebook posts on the day of the 2020 presidential election, when "President Trump lost the election."

The juror had previously said they did not have any biases against Trump, Blanche said.

Another Trump attorney, Susan Necheles, said the post was of a "clearly anti-Trump event."

“This is clearly an anti-Trump event that she’s out celebrating and partying at," Necheles said.

https://nypost.com/2024/04/15/us-ne...trial-live-updates-reactions-photos-analysis/

 

Trump juror quits over fear of being outed after Fox News host says she should scare Trump
"This nurse scares me if I'm Trump," Watters said

By the end of Tuesday, seven jurors had been selected to determine whether Donald Trump should be the first president ever convicted of a crime. By Thursday morning, when the Manhattan trial resumed, there were just six.

According to Judge Juan Merchan, the juror was excused after later expressing doubt that she could remain fair and impartial. In particular, she said that friends and family had already reached out to ask if she was serving on the jury.

Those calls came after numerous media outlets reported potentially identifying biographical information about the woman, including her job and the neighborhood she called home. Fox News Jesse Watters highlighted the juror's details while reading through public pool notes about the selected members. "This nurse scares me if I'm Trump," Watters said.

Other outlets including NBC News, CNN, CBS News, and ABC News also publicized details about the juror, including additional identifying information.

Watters has alleged without evidence that "liberal activists" are lying to get on the jury, a claim that Trump himself has repeated on Truth Social, potentially violating a gag order.

Jury selection is continuing Thursday. Trump is facing charges that he falsified business records to cover up a hush payment and affair with Stormy Daniels to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty.

Judge Merchan implored journalists to be more careful going forward, asking that they exercise "common sense" before reporting jurors' biographical information, NBC News reported.

"Jurors are real people with families, lives, and jobs," tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. "If one juror came forward and vocally expressed concern about her safety, that concern is likely in the mind of the *other* jurors. Their safety must be ensured in order for our legal system to work."

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/18/ju...-fox-news-host-singled-her-out/?in_brief=true

 

JFC, that last video is brutal.

 

Wow, the way the reporter describes what is happening is insane. Just pure shock and adrenaline but she does an incredible job of describing what she is seeing in the most calm and detailed way considering what she is seeing in front of her.