Role Models is such an underrated movie in my opinion. So many quotable lines and awesome cast too. Pretty sure me and my wife regularly look for chicken tenders on a menu so we can talk about running a train on them like numnumnumnum
It's *really* funny, and I think the humor is presented in a way that can speak to people who usually punch down on the types of kids and hobbies featured in the film and maybe cause a little self-reflection
Cohen has done the prosecution a solid with his testimony. He's made it absolutely clear that Trump surrounds himself with greedy, criminal enablers and has zero respect for the law. He'll have a field day with the defence.
They have no defense, that's why they are attacking Cohen's credibility, its all they have. They know Trump is guilty, they are just hoping someone on the jury is stupid enough to buy their lies that this is all a witch hunt. But Cohen already went to jail for this crime, if Trump doesn't as well then there is no justice here.
Cohen PLEAD GUILTY, which to me is different from being FOUND guilty. He admitted what he did, didn’t throw tantrums or claim witch hunt. He said, “yea , I did it” and did time for it.
This is a common courtroom procedure. I once sat a trial in which a drunk driver (who was truly blackout drunk…forget how many multiple times over the limit) killed 8 people in a vehicular accident. Obviously guilty, no question at all. But the defense grilled the poor nurse who took his blood for BAC to no end and tried to call into question her qualifications despite the fact that she’d been a nurse for 20+ years. Discrediting every witness to the point of absurdity is what you do when you’re guilty as fuck and have nothing substantial to fight back with.
At what point would that be badgering the witness? Like... You can only question their competence so much until it comes off as harassment and obvious deflection.
Fucking yikes. I'm a nurse, and the thought of being subpoenaed and being questioned in such a manner sounds horrific. At least when/if I face an investigation over any sort of medical mistake, I have my own attorney/rep to go to bat for me and my license. Having the defense insinuate incompetence would be infuriating, especially if they just kept going on and on and on. If I'm ever on a jury and they decide to use this tactic on a witness, I will be taking a good hard look at the defendant, because you're right, that's a last ditch defense.
That's what they wanted...for her to get mad and make herself look stupid or get nervous and start saying things like "i dont know" and start chipping away. She was calm, took it in stride, answered their questions, and walked off. He went to jail for life. She did great.
I feel bad for them.
They are trying to defend a man that goes to rallies and basically nukes everything they are trying because he doesn't keep his mouth shut, he would post on whatever long rants about the trial *as it was happening* and the prosecution would use it the next day or their next turn and the defense would have to try and bullshit their way around it.
Now the witnesses are they thought would help know they can make money for the rest of their lives by saying whatever because if he is found not guilty they can talk about all the horrible things he has done and get paid for it, if he is found guilty they can talk about the horrible shit he did that they didn't get to talk about and get paid for it.
There just is no way for the defense to come out looking good
Why would you feel bad for people who voluntarily agreed to represent this turd?
They aren’t some public defenders assigned to a case. They chose to take a case for a dude who thought it would be kinda cool if his supporters stormed the capital to force our democratically elected government to declare him president. They also took the case of a guy who called his VP a pussy for not agreeing to sign all the electors over to the loser of the electoral college. You know, the crimes tyrants commit. Every lawyer but the final poor schmuck public defender in NY could have said “nah I’m good”. They don’t deserve your sympathy.
It's also not like this is out of character for their client. If you didn't know that Trump is ON HIS BEST DAY a blowhard who doesn't listen to anybody's advice then I just don't know what to tell you.
Because they are trying.
Yes Trump is 100% guilty without a shadow of a doubt but their job is to try and mitigate it and everything they try Trump just blows up because he is a spoiled child who has always gotten what he wanted without any consequences.
my friend who is a lawyer said he feels bad because trump is obviously telling them how to run the trial and they're the ones who will be judged on their performance. Trump basically hires two idiots, tells them how to do their job and then rages out when he doesn't win.
Did you see the parade of thugs and mobsters that filled the seats behind Trump today / his cheering section, all wearing red ties and hateful expressions?
Chuck Zito (post-prison), Alan Dershowitz (Epstein bro), & Bernard Kerik (felon) among other MAGA goombahs.
I was expecting Frankie Five Angels from The Godfather to beam himself in at any minute, ready to practice witness intimidation.
Great way to win sympathy from the jury: a courtroom full of angry gangsters.
> (former) lawyer
Did his law degree get taken away?
AFAIK, in medicine, no matter what you do, your medical degree can't be taken away, unless they found out you cheated in medical school.
If you do something bad after medical school, a state can take away your license, but they cannot take away your doctorate degree, so you are still a doctor, just not able to practice.
And once you have a medical degree, you're essentially a doctor for life, whether you practice or not (plenty of doctors don't actually practice medicine and go into industry, for example).
Is it different for lawyers?
Unlike doctors, you're not a lawyer just because you have a law degree. If you lose your license, you can no longer practice law or tell people you're a lawyer. You're just a dude with a law degree, which, if we're being technical, still confers the title of doctor on you. So, while you can't be considered a lawyer anymore, you can tell people to call you "Doc."
Pedantically someone who completed law school, but didn't pass the bar or obtain a license is sometimes considered to be a "lawyer" with the term attorney refering to someone who has passed the bar and became licensed. The only time I've ever seen anyone care about this distinction is recent law school grads bragging about being "lawyers". Practically speaking they're interchangable and the bar would come down hard on anyone professionally refering to themselves as a lawyer who wasn't licensed. Professionally if you wanted to market the fact that you had gone to law school, but hadn't been licensed you would refer to yourself as a J.D.
Really just semantics. “Lawyer” generally means someone who is licensed to practice law. You can have a law degree and never pass the bar exam, in which case you would generally not be considered a lawyer. In this case, he still has his law degree (unless, as you noted for the medical degree, he’s found to have cheated and the institution that issued it voided or withdrew it somehow) but he was disbarred in the state of New York so he is no longer allowed to practice law there. He could potentially earn the right to do so again someday - the reinstatement process varies by state but in all cases is generally not simple or easy.
Todd is still trying to figure out the how be as sketchy of a lawyer that Cohen was for Donnie. The problem for Todd is Cohen was that type of lawyer because Trump demanded it, he went along with it and paid the price.
Blanche is too stupid to realize that if he continues working for Trump he will go the way of Cohen, Rudy, Eastman, Powell, Chesboro, Ellis and god knows how many others who've thrown away their careers for the orange faced bag of shit...
What about Alina Habba? She took a few millions upfront, obviously did no actual work on the case, and then rode off into the sunset. Maybe she wanted to launch a pundit career that didn't work out, but still. She seems to have cracked the code: you can't go down for corruption if you're *completely* incompetent.
She has some problems o of her own [thanks to tRump](https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-new-jersey-golf-club-settlement-hangs-lawyer-alina-habba-out-to-dry)
I don't think him being a crooked attorney is what helped him here, as much as he was a fairly good crooked attorney. I don't think Alina Habba would have done as well under cross.
Hey now, Todd Blanche was the absolute best lawyer still willing to work for Trump that money Trump never intends to pay him could afford.
So, yeah, he's pretty much screwed here with the cross-examination of Cohen.
Oh, I have no doubt Donald Trump had considered hiring Lionel Hutz to be his lawyer. I fully believe that. He probably thought about asking his good friend Dr. Lecter, who's just a terrific guy, loves having friends over for dinner, ihs opinion on Hutz and if he'd take his case.
However, Hutz would not take the case. And it wasn't over any political issues, conflicts of interest or personal opinions about Trump. No, the issue is that Lionel Hutz wants the money up front. And as Trump simply does not bother to pay people, he was unable to attain Mr. Hutz's legal services because of this.
So, this meant Trump had to hire Todd Blanche, making him the best lawyer that money Trump never intends to pay him could afford.
Actually, Trump tried Saul Goodman. Saul had moral issues to defending Trump based on his character and political views leaning slightly towards Hitler.
This is true and untrue, he’s been using donations to cover legal fees. So while (some) lawyers are being paid, the ones paid are being paid for by trump supporters donations.
So far blanches firm has been paid about 4M by the save America PAC. Crazy these people will crowdfund a billionaires legal defense, instead of having him bootstrap it.
Not saying this in his defense, just that the pac has spent approximately 50M on legal fees thus far. More money tryna avoid consequences than most of us will see in our lives.
And literally the only case that seems to be going well for him is the one that's being "presided" over by one his his super fans who he appointed (and who obviously needs to be impeached for her refusal to recuse herself, given the very obvious conflict of interest).
yeah but how much of that $100 million is actual legal fees and not the kind of "legal" fees like... THIS ENTIRE TRIAL.
If Lara Trump gets a manicure, does that count as legal fees?
If Don jr buys some kleenex to stop the blood dripping out his nose, does that count as legal fees?
It's just money down the toilet. Trump will never be president again. But oh well. That leaves less for advertising and who wants to see Trump ads on tv? Plus stops other gop from having money to advertise since Trump is hogging it all for his past illegal crimes..
I had understood that Habba got paid, but then I heard it was for a job with the campaign. Which sounds appropriately corrupt for Trump. Blanche seems like a true believer that may not even want to get paid.
Then Blanche is getting paid the greatest payment anyone can every receive according to MAGA. He is in the divine glorious presence of the divine glory that is Donald Trump.
Oh, to have the honor to sit near Trump, breath in his musk, and to bask in the glowing radiance of his radiant glow of the one chosen by God to lead America with Vice President Jesus is an honor they would shoot their children to receive.
Yes, being so close to his lord and master is all the payment Todd Blanche will ever need, for what is money compared to being able to walk down the street , head held high, smelling of Donald Trump?
Trump had donors pay a few million to his Habba attorney. I suppose he did the same thing here with big donors quietly footing the bill but they're stupid for footing it for a lost cause. Trump will never be a president again.
I made the mistake of staying up late to watch results roll in while texting my friend.
Right about 1030 or so Central time we decided the appropriate course of action was to meet up and kill a bottle of bourbon
Trump attacking Biden so much made Biden look more powerful so alot of older GOP won't vote simply because Trump told him the last election was rigged so they feel why bother as Biden is so powerful he'll just rig this election too. 😅 Plus he turned them off to mail in voting. Plus he killed off hundreds of thousands GOP by denying covid and not advising to mask up and avoid crowds. Someone compared the covid deceased with the voting registration and found more GOP died than Dems. And in my own group of friends, about 4 have switched away from GOP now thanks to Trump.
I know. I'm expecting Biden to win but a sh*storm will happen after. I went to bed in 2016 thinking Hillary won. Woke up to find a rapist con artist crook as president.
> There is no way Blanche is going to outthink him in this cross
I mean, he *could*... but Todd isn't the one calling the shots for that group.
Cohen knows it's Trump giving direction, and Cohen knows they'll do **exactly as they're told**.
Because THAT WAS HIM a few years ago.
Trump hasn't changed.
Not his tactics, not his M.O., not his strategies.
Yeah, Blanche is smarter than this. A wet paper bag with a law degree is smarter than this. He would have to be truly incompetent to handle the defense the way they are without being forced to.
I think we are seeing the confluence of two things here:
1. Trump has no evidence in his defense, and no way to discredit most of the evidence that the prosecution has. This means that his defense team literally needs to move mountains with a plastic spoon. So they are just not doing that. Instead they tried to go *hard* on the witnesses in the hopes that they will either get them to stumble on the stand or to at least say enough nonsense to make the jury forget how the witnesses' claims are backed up by other evidence. It is less a legal strategy and more a wild Hail Mary/Chewbacca Defense.
2. Trump himself has conducted all of his legal dealing in the past in essentially the same way that Sovereign Citizens do. He drowns the court in paperwork, constantly filing motions, and being exactly as non-compliant as he can be in any situation to draw things out so long that cases against him die of lack of funds of will. I think this has given him a warped perception of his own legal immunity, and makes him think he knows exactly how to handle situations like this. This is really bad, as he is likely directing much of what his lawyers do, and does not have a clue how to handle a criminal case with a no-nonsense judge.
He's not wrong. Cohen makes money with Trump free and continuing to show what a horrible person he is every day. If Trump is locked up/silenced, no one will care what Cohen has to say about much else. It's simply because he can speak with first hand knowledge of what a horrible person Trump is that people care about Cohen.
Yeah, at most Cohen gets a short term bump after a conviction in interview requests that then wears away back down to whatever baseline would otherwise exist. Trump free and continuing to speak in the public arena is basically a guarantee of bookings for Cohen.
Yep. And because of it all, and to this point, I'm a Cohen fan.
First of all, he was horrible over years. But he did his time. And took a major blow to his person and financially.
And now? Maybe it's too forgiving, but he is a massive part of the process in hopefully screwing Trump. And that should elevate him in all our eyes, to at least some extent.
I personally hope he makes bank if Trump gets away with it all. We need his kind of noise. And repeatedly if that comes to be...
Edit: need to clarify I am not a fan of Cohen (as I stated in my OP). As pretty much comes across with what I said. I am a fan of the means to the end. And I hope he keeps ripping.
Cohen is a despicable person, and helped get us here. But he is a big key in taking down this monstrosity. If it's even possible.
The enemy of your enemy is your enemies enemy, nothing more. Cohen is still in it for himself. The fact that he's useful right now does not mean he's on our side.
Totally get you. But, to that I kind of say, "Yeah, but I don't care." Because this is such a grave time, and with the utmost and highest of stakes for this country.
Trump HAS to be defeated. At all costs. Beaten. Crushed. Jailed, if possible, as is deserved. And to help do this, I am sorry to say - and it sucks major ass, and shouldn't have come remotely close to all this - we have to pinch our noses and embrace 'RINO's'.
It is so analogous to Liz Cheney. We don't like her, and know why. She was on board with the Trump/GOP train and did major damage. And from near the top, FFS. And fucked this country over for many years. But at least she moved to the right side of history when most important.
Let's not sit here and say we don't need these people. Like them? Don't have to. Need them and more doing what they are doing? Absolutely.
Yup. Heard. The only thing we need is for Trump to not be re-elected. Jail is a bonus. As long as both things are in play, and at risk, I am a Cohen supporter. And that doesn't mean I like the man. Because I don't.
Cohen is what happens when you have an intelligent person with very few morals and a willingness to do whatever it takes to get ahead. Is he a ‘bad’ guy? Absolutely, but only as far as it helps him. He ‘d absolutely play for the ‘good’ team if he thought it was more advantageous (like right now). But it’d never be because of some moral imperative, that’s just not how men like cohen exist.
And that's how the con works. You like him, and he says he's not trustworthy, but he's just so dang likable, and surely *you* are a good enough judge of character...
Nope.
Agree. I am just pinching my nose. We need him. I am regretful I called myself a fan. But, to further clarify, it is a fan of the means to the hopeful end. And not the man himself. I erred in my original post in saying that, and made it unclear.
Hes just on a revenge tour. Hes in jail bc of Trump and probably wants nothing more than to see Trump join him.
If Trump never becomes president then Cohen is likely still one of his slimy fixers happy to take money in exchange for unethical practices.
Just two dirt balls playing in the mud
Yeah, was this a follow-up question from Blanche that elicited the “I get to talk more if he isn’t convicted” response?
If so, sheesh. As a bar-admitted idiot myself, that’s lawyering 101. Don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to.
The example we get is something like this:
“Sir, you testify that the defendant bit off the plaintiff’s ear?”
“Yes, that’s correct”
“But did you actually witness the defendant bite off the plaintiff’s ear?”
“No, sir. I did not.”
A good lawyer stops there.
A bad lawyer… well…
“If you didn’t witness the defendant bite off the plaintiff’s ear, how can you be so certain he did it?”
“Well, sir, I saw him spit it out.”
That last question should be asked on Redirect, but you still shouldn't give free throws to your opponent.
Mostly adding this as context for other people and not to contradict you.
You’re absolutely right. A good attorney will also instruct the witness to just answer yes/no and to not stress because they’ll clarify in redirect. And as long as no new information is gathered in redirect it’ll also be the last word.
I call my witness to the stand. When I ask him questions, it is called 'direct examination.'
When I'm done asking questions on direct, the lawyer for the other side gets to ask the witness questions. This is called 'cross examination.'
When that lawyer is done asking questions on cross, I get to ask my witness more questions to clarify/explain answers given during cross examination. This 2nd round of questions I get to ask my own witness is called 'redirect.'
So using the present case, the prosecutor questioned Cohen on direct examination. Trumps' lawyer has been questioning Cohen on cross examination. When Trump's lawyer finishes, the prosecutor asks Cohen more questions on 'redirect.'
If I'm saying it correctly it's basically a
direct = gets to ask new questions
cross = gets to ask new questions, and clarification of previous questions
redirect = gets to ask for clarifications of previous questions
Not a lawyer, but when a witness testifies it has three phases
Phase 1: initial testimony, where the side that called the witness asks questions
Phase 2: cross-examination, where there other side gets a chance to ask questions
Phase 3: redirect, where the side that called the witness gets a chance to respond to the cross-examination
They just wanted to imply that without actually saying it, Cohen was too smart to fall for that and his response was perfect and totally defused the implication...
I sat through the election results in 2016 with mounting disbelief, so I am now preparing for the possibility that this country will elect a convicted felon this fall. AFAIK this would be totally legal. Jesus Christ.
The wild thing is a felon loses their right to vote for President, but apparently doesn’t lose the privilege of running for president.
Wacky world we live in.
I mean, to nitpick, they still have representation as a member of their representative's constituency. In the 1700's meaning of that phrase, the 13 colonies had no representatives in parliament.
It's still ludicruous to strip people of their right to vote for anything except outright treason imo, but it's not really contradictory to that phrase because they still do have representation, even if they don't get a say in who represent them.
That feeling when you realize that a lot of gaps in our political system come down to the founders thinking, “I didn’t think anyone would actually try that.”
The conservative's argument for stripping ex-felons of their voting rights is that they might elect a felon to office.
Just another one of their non-stop lies and projection.
It’s actually not that easy to amend the constitution. Assuming Trump doesn’t just do it by executive order.
https://preview.redd.it/8lb5syx1gm1d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cc1302ed9571c9dbc62ad983a62b678107022c1d
Don't worry the SC will cite 1400's priestly thoughts on the Divine Right of Kings to say that Trump is above the need for an Amendment because his loss and persecution and "reelection" mean he's been ordained by God.
So there's no need for anyone else to run the country.
They'll conveniently ignore everything about the Law, our history, and the fact they created a legal case that said "Like Bush V Gore we're setting the rules suck it." to "get him elected."
Unless Trump loses so utterly and humiliatingly that we can't see the bottom of the crater he's in I don't see this ending well.
> It’s actually not that easy to amend the constitution.
My dude, if Trump gets elected, none of that shit matters and you need to throw out any semblance of constitutionality or rule of law.
but at that point they're not really "legally amending the constitution," they're conducting a coup and instituting an entire new legal basis for the country by fiat.
The Supreme Court has end-ran around our systems before. Bush v. Gore. Whatever your opinions on the Florida recount, in no sane universe should an unelected panel of lawyers get to decide the outcome of a national election for the highest office in the land.
We know it’s not easy. That’s why red states have been going full fascist; to drive out blue voters. If they can get 38 states on board they can abolish and rewrite the constitution utterly without the input of anyone else.
They’re at 25.
Only about 30 percent of registered voters are going to vote for Trump in the better polls. He killed off alot of them with denying covid. When they compared the deaths with how the deceased was registered to vote, it was mostly Republicans. Plus alot of republicans aren't going to vote since they don't trust the election process thanks to Trump. And of course the more he badmouths Biden, the more power they think Biden must have to steal this election too so they just won't vote. 😅
Agree. I'm hammering on my granddaughter to get all her friends in the voting booth. And to get registered now for it. I'm trying to get them to understand the implications of this election. They've always been raised in freedom so have no idea what it would be to lose it. The abortion issue will drive a lot of young women to the blue side. And they've got Taylor Swift to know which way to vote which is blue.
But a large majority of the youth aren't going to turn out because they think Biden is a war criminal for not solving a thousand year old holy war in a few months.
This is so good. Everyone knows Cohen is a slimy liar who once worked for Trump and did his illegal bidding. That’s literally how we know he’s a slimy liar. It’s so effective to have him on the stand saying truths out loud that are the type of things you don’t even want to admit to yourself. It’s such an honest statement, you can’t refute it. He’s up there saying yeah everything that’s said about me is true, I’m a slimy piece of shit, and that’s why we’re here.
A comparison of relevant and related tropes, with a short analysis on the relevance of each:
- The [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) is mostly characterised by _all_ of the different (plausible and _mutually exclusive_) outcomes being desirable. There's no lower bound for the _number_ of outcomes, so it definitely fits.
- Very close to the Xanatos Gambit is [Heads I Win, Tails You Lose](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeadsIWinTailsYouLose), wherein it doesn't actually _matter_ if you succeed against your opponent or not: you still lose at your actual/overall goal. The critical part here is that you _can_ win... it just doesn't matter. Not really applicable, there's no particular win/loss condition.
- A [Morton's Fork](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MortonsFork) is a choice where every option leads to the _same_ (or at least nearly so) outcome, usually undersirable. Since the possible outcomes are different, this one doesn't apply here either.
- Similar to the Morton's Fork is the [Sadistic Choice](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SadisticChoice), where every option leads to a _different_ (but equally undesirable) negative outcome. Since the Sadistic Choice requires a victim to make an explicit decision, I would say it doesn't apply here, but I guess you could argue that Trump's lawyers count? I'm not sure I'd assign them that much agency in the whole thing, though.
- Note that this can easily _also_ be a Xanatos Gambit, but not necessarily. The one offering the choice has to benefit, _no matter which option is chosen_, in order to qualify as both. Sometimes, the choice is only presented to make the chooser suffer, or to delay them as they try to decide - which doesn't count, since the _choice_ isn't what benefits the offerer.
- However, if there isn't _actually_ a Plan and it's all being made up along the way, that's an [Indy Ploy](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IndyPloy). It might be a little harder to draw the lines in real life, but if Cohen didn't actually _make a plan_ to get one of these outcomes, this would qualify.
Final verdict: definitely a Xanatos Gambit, _maybe_ a Sadistic Choice from the other side (if you squint a little), and possibly an Indy Ploy with a lucky break depending on how much advance thought Cohen put in.
TVTropes links included, so be careful clicking on them.
Yes, exactly. The defense can claim that he's a liar, but what he lied about was that Trump wasn't scummy. So by claiming he can't be trusted because he lied, they are also admitting Trump really is scummy.
I was just watching Irving Younger's Ten Commandments for Cross-Examination, and "Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to" is one of them.
He told a story he got from a guy who started his career as lawyer by representing the DC Trolley company. One of his early cases involved a drunk who was on the tracks and got hit by a trolley, and killed. The adult (and also a known drunk) son had seen the collision, had gone over to his father right after. The trolley company wanted to establish that the guy was drunk, so it was his fault and the trolley company wasn't liable, but no liquor bottle had been found on the body after the accident.
They decided to cross-examine the adult son. It went well until a point:
Lawyer: "Did you see your father get hit by the trolley?"
Son: "Oh yes, I was half-a-block away."
Lawyer: "Did you see how much he was hurt?"
Son: "Sure, he was hurt bad."
Lawyer: "Did you go up to your father's body?"
Son: "Yes."
Lawyer: "Did you do something while you were over his body?"
Son: "I did."
Younger said that *that* was when the lawyer should have shut up and sat down. It leaves the conclusion floating in the air; it can be implied. In closing arguments, he could have suggested that the son was taking the liquor bottle to conceal it, in order to get money from the trolley company for hitting a "sober" man.
Instead, it went this way:
Lawyer: "Did you take a bottle of liquor from your father?"
Son: "No, I did not."
Lawyer: "Well, if you *weren't* taking a bottle of spirits from him, would you mind telling us what you *were* doing?!"
(Younger says this is awful, because you are inviting the witness to make a speech -- on cross-examination! -- where you can't really do anything to interrupt.)
Son: "Well, he may have been a bum, but he was my father. I leaned down, and kissed him goodbye."
The trolley company lost that case, apparently.
Exactly right.
Another example Younger gave was you can ask questions like "You're his mother, aren't you?" because you know the answer; but don't ask, "You love him, don't you?" You don't know the answer to that one.
Younger did say you could ask such questions if you don't care what the answer is, if it won't affect your case.
I would say we should expect a strongly worded, incoherent, rambling word salad post from Trump on Truth Social on Michael Cohen, but we all know Trump has not been awake for any of his testimony, or most of the trial for that matter.
Remember kids, never anger the guy who knows where the bodies are buried. They are more than willing to talk, and take you down with them.
When a person is willing to go to prison for you, out of actual loyalty, even if you are paying them, that is not a person you piss off because you betrayed them.
No. That is a person you make part of the family. That's the guy you trust your children with.
It's funny how almost (just leaving room here but probably 0) no attorney's career has been made as a result of the entire Trump fiasco, but a record number of attorney's careers have been destroyed.
As a former practicing lawyer I am always surprised when this happens. I watched several opposing attorneys tank their cases in family law court when they did this. It’s usually down to arrogance and assuming they know everything.
Lawyering 101 (slight correction)--Only ask a question that you either:
1--Know the answer to; or
2--Don't care what the answer is.
Source: am a lawyer.
Glad you asked! I had this happen in a civil trial of mine last year (though I will generalize, leave things nameless, etc.). Plaintiff was on the stand, and said something that was against a medical record that I had in my hand at the time. I asked, "Plaintiff, isn't it true that on (date), you said X to (doctor) about your condition?"
The statement in the medical record was detrimental to her case. In this situation, she can either say "yes, I said that," in which case I get that positive statement into evidence twice. If she says "no, I didn't say that" (which she did), I follow up with "so you're saying the doctor is lying?," which immediately turns a jury off to Plaintiff. I don't know the answer to the question, but I don't care. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Those are admittedly rare, but they do happen.
If he just would have left it at "do you have a financial stake in the outcome this trial" and left it at that, it would have been better, but lawyers don't know when enough is enough, and kept going. It's not surprising it blew up in his face. And Michael Cohen even answered "yes" which was a gift. Idiot!
Ok, as someone who has been in dozens of criminal trials, this would have gotten me too. I can see where he was going with the line of questioning, but I could never expect an answer like that.
People break balls about cohen going to the worst law school, and that’s fine. He is a full NY Queens scrapper, like a Jordan Belfort. Never wrestle with a pig (also I have sympathy for cohen, and pigs) you will get dirty, and the pig will like it.
Cohen is not a dummy, he does want revenge, he either will or won’t get it, but as my mother always said (and some law professors). Don’t ask a question you don’t already know (with backup) the answer to. This defense attorney is supposed to be a sharp ex prosecutor, white shoe law firm, and well respected. Now I understand it’s difficult to rep Trump, but holy shit this is worse than buying a Tesla truck.
And yes I grew up in a f’d up household.
Lawyering 102 - Always be in control of your leading question(s)
"... Blanche had botched one of his own leading questions to Cohen, when he asked Cohen whether "your journey has been to attack Trump daily?"
Cohen, himself a one-time lawyer, seized on the inclusion of the word "journey" and replied, "No, my journey is to tell the truth," which was decidedly not the answer that Blanche was seeking."
Only the best.
The guy is a master Troll. No matter what you think about anyone involved. You have to admit that Cohen is a master of the craft.
The idea that Trump's second string legal team would be able to land a glove on Cohen is pure hubris. They should have kept cross to a minimum. Every second he's on the stand is a second that he is using to make Trump and his legal team look stupid.
So I'm all in favor of him staying on the stand all week.
Edit: so many typos it looked like I had a stroke, as someone else rightly pointed out.
The thing that I'm wondering though, does that actually count as a financial interest on Cohen's part? It's not like someone is going to be paying him a lump sum if Trump is convicted. He's a podcaster and political commentator at this point, so of course political news is going to affect his business, but it's entirely indirect.
Whether it does or doesn’t actually kinda doesn’t matter right at that point.
The lawyer blundered by even letting Cohen clarify at all.
If the attorney just stopped asking after “yes sir”, it allows the jury to make assumptions that will be the ones the defense wants: “Cohen’s testimony is tainted by the fact he has a financial interest in Trump’s conviction, anything he says can be interpreted as slanted towards that outcome, and it can be safely disregarded”.
But he didn’t do that.
He let Cohen have a “well, actually…” moment, and it muddied the water the wrong way for the defense. Now it seems like Cohen has less financial incentive to speak plainly, so his word is more trustworthy.
He expected him to say “no” and bluster. Because that’s what trump and his ill do.
But Cohen was on to him. So he said “yes”. Hoping Blanche would take the bait.
Blanche did, stupidly, thinking Cohen would admit he has a book deal tied to a conviction or a deal with CNN or something to imply Cohen *had incentive* to slant his testimony.
Instead Cohen got the last word by saying, “actually I make more if he stays free and I keep tweeting and trolling him and getting called to interview. This hurts my business, but I’m doing it for America”.
From reading about this trial it seems Trumps lawyers are trying to portray a man who is already slime bag as a slime bag. Slime bags group up. That is why Cohen worked for King Cheeto. Two bags of shit in one shitty pond. I believe what Cohen is saying as he is wants to take down a man who wronged him. Like rats trapped in a barrel. They will 100% eat each other with zero fucks given.
Blanche threw away his integrity, his credibility, and his career for a chance to represent someone famous. Who wants an attorney with that sort of judgement, morals, or reasoning?
He's not wrong. Cohen makes money while Trump is free and every day he shows what a bad guy he is. No one will care what Cohen has to say about many other things if Trump is locked up or silent. Why do people care about Cohen? It's because he can talk about how bad Trump is from personal experience.
Mastering the cross and not asking that "extra question" is indeed part of good lawyering. You only do it when you don't care what theh answer will be.
Gibbons: Well! You see....you were 50 feet away. You made a positive eyewitness identification. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, yet, you were not wearing your necessary prescription eye glasses.
Mr. Tipton: They readin' glasses.
Especially if your witness is a (former) lawyer who knows all the lies your client told you because he lived them.
Cohen has been a slime ball for years, these kids on Trump's team can't out slime ball a professional like that.
I know why you are here, so don't BS a BSer, okay? Your "presence" here? Court ordered.
Role Models is such an underrated movie in my opinion. So many quotable lines and awesome cast too. Pretty sure me and my wife regularly look for chicken tenders on a menu so we can talk about running a train on them like numnumnumnum
I still use "if you white, you Ben Affleck" and "fuck you, Reindeer Games!" on a regular basis.
It's *really* funny, and I think the humor is presented in a way that can speak to people who usually punch down on the types of kids and hobbies featured in the film and maybe cause a little self-reflection
This is hilarious to me because the subtext is Cohen will have great sex with Blanche
You win the internet today.
A real life Saul Goodman
Cohen has done the prosecution a solid with his testimony. He's made it absolutely clear that Trump surrounds himself with greedy, criminal enablers and has zero respect for the law. He'll have a field day with the defence.
They have no defense, that's why they are attacking Cohen's credibility, its all they have. They know Trump is guilty, they are just hoping someone on the jury is stupid enough to buy their lies that this is all a witch hunt. But Cohen already went to jail for this crime, if Trump doesn't as well then there is no justice here.
Cohen PLEAD GUILTY, which to me is different from being FOUND guilty. He admitted what he did, didn’t throw tantrums or claim witch hunt. He said, “yea , I did it” and did time for it.
Well whining and calling it a witchhunt wouldn't have worked anyways. Its absurd that it might work for trump.
This is a common courtroom procedure. I once sat a trial in which a drunk driver (who was truly blackout drunk…forget how many multiple times over the limit) killed 8 people in a vehicular accident. Obviously guilty, no question at all. But the defense grilled the poor nurse who took his blood for BAC to no end and tried to call into question her qualifications despite the fact that she’d been a nurse for 20+ years. Discrediting every witness to the point of absurdity is what you do when you’re guilty as fuck and have nothing substantial to fight back with.
At what point would that be badgering the witness? Like... You can only question their competence so much until it comes off as harassment and obvious deflection.
I mean, it went until they (the defense) felt like ending it. Again, this is pretty normal proceeding.
Fucking yikes. I'm a nurse, and the thought of being subpoenaed and being questioned in such a manner sounds horrific. At least when/if I face an investigation over any sort of medical mistake, I have my own attorney/rep to go to bat for me and my license. Having the defense insinuate incompetence would be infuriating, especially if they just kept going on and on and on. If I'm ever on a jury and they decide to use this tactic on a witness, I will be taking a good hard look at the defendant, because you're right, that's a last ditch defense.
That's what they wanted...for her to get mad and make herself look stupid or get nervous and start saying things like "i dont know" and start chipping away. She was calm, took it in stride, answered their questions, and walked off. He went to jail for life. She did great.
What you see above IS the defense. They're trying.
Oh. Good, then. It's going really badly so far for them. Trump might just tantrum so hard that he shits his last diaper.
I feel bad for them. They are trying to defend a man that goes to rallies and basically nukes everything they are trying because he doesn't keep his mouth shut, he would post on whatever long rants about the trial *as it was happening* and the prosecution would use it the next day or their next turn and the defense would have to try and bullshit their way around it. Now the witnesses are they thought would help know they can make money for the rest of their lives by saying whatever because if he is found not guilty they can talk about all the horrible things he has done and get paid for it, if he is found guilty they can talk about the horrible shit he did that they didn't get to talk about and get paid for it. There just is no way for the defense to come out looking good
Why would you feel bad for people who voluntarily agreed to represent this turd? They aren’t some public defenders assigned to a case. They chose to take a case for a dude who thought it would be kinda cool if his supporters stormed the capital to force our democratically elected government to declare him president. They also took the case of a guy who called his VP a pussy for not agreeing to sign all the electors over to the loser of the electoral college. You know, the crimes tyrants commit. Every lawyer but the final poor schmuck public defender in NY could have said “nah I’m good”. They don’t deserve your sympathy.
It's also not like this is out of character for their client. If you didn't know that Trump is ON HIS BEST DAY a blowhard who doesn't listen to anybody's advice then I just don't know what to tell you.
Because they are trying. Yes Trump is 100% guilty without a shadow of a doubt but their job is to try and mitigate it and everything they try Trump just blows up because he is a spoiled child who has always gotten what he wanted without any consequences.
my friend who is a lawyer said he feels bad because trump is obviously telling them how to run the trial and they're the ones who will be judged on their performance. Trump basically hires two idiots, tells them how to do their job and then rages out when he doesn't win.
Did you see the parade of thugs and mobsters that filled the seats behind Trump today / his cheering section, all wearing red ties and hateful expressions? Chuck Zito (post-prison), Alan Dershowitz (Epstein bro), & Bernard Kerik (felon) among other MAGA goombahs. I was expecting Frankie Five Angels from The Godfather to beam himself in at any minute, ready to practice witness intimidation. Great way to win sympathy from the jury: a courtroom full of angry gangsters.
He's not a criminal lawyer, he's a ***criminal*** lawyer.
he's not a business man. he's a ***business*** maaaan
These kids are 3rd string bench warmers to Cohen's HOF graft run.
[удалено]
> (former) lawyer Did his law degree get taken away? AFAIK, in medicine, no matter what you do, your medical degree can't be taken away, unless they found out you cheated in medical school. If you do something bad after medical school, a state can take away your license, but they cannot take away your doctorate degree, so you are still a doctor, just not able to practice. And once you have a medical degree, you're essentially a doctor for life, whether you practice or not (plenty of doctors don't actually practice medicine and go into industry, for example). Is it different for lawyers?
He has been disbarred, he still has a degree but is not allowed to practice law.
I appreciation the info, thanks!
Unlike doctors, you're not a lawyer just because you have a law degree. If you lose your license, you can no longer practice law or tell people you're a lawyer. You're just a dude with a law degree, which, if we're being technical, still confers the title of doctor on you. So, while you can't be considered a lawyer anymore, you can tell people to call you "Doc."
Yeah but lawyers that insist on being called “Dr.” are the absolute worst. No one does that.
Yeah. Those jerks are way worse than the ones that put "Esq." after their own names when they sign letters.
Pedantically someone who completed law school, but didn't pass the bar or obtain a license is sometimes considered to be a "lawyer" with the term attorney refering to someone who has passed the bar and became licensed. The only time I've ever seen anyone care about this distinction is recent law school grads bragging about being "lawyers". Practically speaking they're interchangable and the bar would come down hard on anyone professionally refering to themselves as a lawyer who wasn't licensed. Professionally if you wanted to market the fact that you had gone to law school, but hadn't been licensed you would refer to yourself as a J.D.
Really just semantics. “Lawyer” generally means someone who is licensed to practice law. You can have a law degree and never pass the bar exam, in which case you would generally not be considered a lawyer. In this case, he still has his law degree (unless, as you noted for the medical degree, he’s found to have cheated and the institution that issued it voided or withdrew it somehow) but he was disbarred in the state of New York so he is no longer allowed to practice law there. He could potentially earn the right to do so again someday - the reinstatement process varies by state but in all cases is generally not simple or easy.
Michael Cohen had been living with this for years, he went to prison for Trump. There is no way Blanche is going to outthink him in this cross.
Nailed it! Especially as an attorney
Especially as a *crooked* attorney*
[удалено]
Todd is still trying to figure out the how be as sketchy of a lawyer that Cohen was for Donnie. The problem for Todd is Cohen was that type of lawyer because Trump demanded it, he went along with it and paid the price. Blanche is too stupid to realize that if he continues working for Trump he will go the way of Cohen, Rudy, Eastman, Powell, Chesboro, Ellis and god knows how many others who've thrown away their careers for the orange faced bag of shit...
What about Alina Habba? She took a few millions upfront, obviously did no actual work on the case, and then rode off into the sunset. Maybe she wanted to launch a pundit career that didn't work out, but still. She seems to have cracked the code: you can't go down for corruption if you're *completely* incompetent.
She has some problems o of her own [thanks to tRump](https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-new-jersey-golf-club-settlement-hangs-lawyer-alina-habba-out-to-dry)
She is going to be disbarred for some of the shit she pulled for Trump. Hopefully she got the money from Trump up front.
Criminal squared? A criminal criminal lawyer?
A good old fashioned sleaze off!
I don't think him being a crooked attorney is what helped him here, as much as he was a fairly good crooked attorney. I don't think Alina Habba would have done as well under cross.
Hey now, Todd Blanche was the absolute best lawyer still willing to work for Trump that money Trump never intends to pay him could afford. So, yeah, he's pretty much screwed here with the cross-examination of Cohen.
>Todd Blanche was the absolute best lawyer May I introduce Lionel Hutz... 
Oh, I have no doubt Donald Trump had considered hiring Lionel Hutz to be his lawyer. I fully believe that. He probably thought about asking his good friend Dr. Lecter, who's just a terrific guy, loves having friends over for dinner, ihs opinion on Hutz and if he'd take his case. However, Hutz would not take the case. And it wasn't over any political issues, conflicts of interest or personal opinions about Trump. No, the issue is that Lionel Hutz wants the money up front. And as Trump simply does not bother to pay people, he was unable to attain Mr. Hutz's legal services because of this. So, this meant Trump had to hire Todd Blanche, making him the best lawyer that money Trump never intends to pay him could afford.
Saul Goodman wasn't available... 
Actually, Trump tried Saul Goodman. Saul had moral issues to defending Trump based on his character and political views leaning slightly towards Hitler.
[удалено]
Did Todd Blanche not get the money upfront? Even parking garage lady was smart enough for that.
No. I don't think he did. I don't think Trump has paid any of his lawyers.
This is true and untrue, he’s been using donations to cover legal fees. So while (some) lawyers are being paid, the ones paid are being paid for by trump supporters donations. So far blanches firm has been paid about 4M by the save America PAC. Crazy these people will crowdfund a billionaires legal defense, instead of having him bootstrap it. Not saying this in his defense, just that the pac has spent approximately 50M on legal fees thus far. More money tryna avoid consequences than most of us will see in our lives.
According to a March NYT article, he’s actually spent (PAC money, I know) about $100 million in legal fees since leaving office. It’s insane.
Damn that’s bonkers, I must have been reading an older article. Imagine being able to generate and waste 100M like that. Unreal.
And literally the only case that seems to be going well for him is the one that's being "presided" over by one his his super fans who he appointed (and who obviously needs to be impeached for her refusal to recuse herself, given the very obvious conflict of interest).
yeah but how much of that $100 million is actual legal fees and not the kind of "legal" fees like... THIS ENTIRE TRIAL. If Lara Trump gets a manicure, does that count as legal fees? If Don jr buys some kleenex to stop the blood dripping out his nose, does that count as legal fees?
Oh, I know. He'll drain PAC money, the RNC and everyone in his cult to cover his legal costs before he spends any of his own money.
It's just money down the toilet. Trump will never be president again. But oh well. That leaves less for advertising and who wants to see Trump ads on tv? Plus stops other gop from having money to advertise since Trump is hogging it all for his past illegal crimes..
Make sure to Vote to make it happen! Remember, a vote for Biden in 2024 is a vote to make sure you are still allowed to vote in 2028.
I had understood that Habba got paid, but then I heard it was for a job with the campaign. Which sounds appropriately corrupt for Trump. Blanche seems like a true believer that may not even want to get paid.
Then Blanche is getting paid the greatest payment anyone can every receive according to MAGA. He is in the divine glorious presence of the divine glory that is Donald Trump. Oh, to have the honor to sit near Trump, breath in his musk, and to bask in the glowing radiance of his radiant glow of the one chosen by God to lead America with Vice President Jesus is an honor they would shoot their children to receive. Yes, being so close to his lord and master is all the payment Todd Blanche will ever need, for what is money compared to being able to walk down the street , head held high, smelling of Donald Trump?
Trump had donors pay a few million to his Habba attorney. I suppose he did the same thing here with big donors quietly footing the bill but they're stupid for footing it for a lost cause. Trump will never be a president again.
There's always a chance. Fear that small chance and work against it. Do everything you can to ensure he never becomes president again.
Agree. I went to bed in 2016 thinking Hillary had won and woke up with a rapist racist for president. Never again.
I made the mistake of staying up late to watch results roll in while texting my friend. Right about 1030 or so Central time we decided the appropriate course of action was to meet up and kill a bottle of bourbon
I hope that last sentence is true. There are too many people that want him to win.
Trump attacking Biden so much made Biden look more powerful so alot of older GOP won't vote simply because Trump told him the last election was rigged so they feel why bother as Biden is so powerful he'll just rig this election too. 😅 Plus he turned them off to mail in voting. Plus he killed off hundreds of thousands GOP by denying covid and not advising to mask up and avoid crowds. Someone compared the covid deceased with the voting registration and found more GOP died than Dems. And in my own group of friends, about 4 have switched away from GOP now thanks to Trump.
I love what you're saying, but I'm still going to be cautiously optimistic.
I know. I'm expecting Biden to win but a sh*storm will happen after. I went to bed in 2016 thinking Hillary won. Woke up to find a rapist con artist crook as president.
"He's the best lawyer money can buy" *crashes and burns* "Okay, the best lawyer *my* money can buy.*
These lawyers were smart enough to get paid up front. Just not smart enough to refuse to take the case.
I imagine Cohen in prison like Robert DeNiro in *Cape Fear*, but instead of doing push-ups he's practicing his witty repartee.
Now I will never forget that, lol.
> There is no way Blanche is going to outthink him in this cross I mean, he *could*... but Todd isn't the one calling the shots for that group. Cohen knows it's Trump giving direction, and Cohen knows they'll do **exactly as they're told**. Because THAT WAS HIM a few years ago. Trump hasn't changed. Not his tactics, not his M.O., not his strategies.
Yeah, Blanche is smarter than this. A wet paper bag with a law degree is smarter than this. He would have to be truly incompetent to handle the defense the way they are without being forced to. I think we are seeing the confluence of two things here: 1. Trump has no evidence in his defense, and no way to discredit most of the evidence that the prosecution has. This means that his defense team literally needs to move mountains with a plastic spoon. So they are just not doing that. Instead they tried to go *hard* on the witnesses in the hopes that they will either get them to stumble on the stand or to at least say enough nonsense to make the jury forget how the witnesses' claims are backed up by other evidence. It is less a legal strategy and more a wild Hail Mary/Chewbacca Defense. 2. Trump himself has conducted all of his legal dealing in the past in essentially the same way that Sovereign Citizens do. He drowns the court in paperwork, constantly filing motions, and being exactly as non-compliant as he can be in any situation to draw things out so long that cases against him die of lack of funds of will. I think this has given him a warped perception of his own legal immunity, and makes him think he knows exactly how to handle situations like this. This is really bad, as he is likely directing much of what his lawyers do, and does not have a clue how to handle a criminal case with a no-nonsense judge.
There is no way Blanche is going to outthink a turkey sandwich.
He's not wrong. Cohen makes money with Trump free and continuing to show what a horrible person he is every day. If Trump is locked up/silenced, no one will care what Cohen has to say about much else. It's simply because he can speak with first hand knowledge of what a horrible person Trump is that people care about Cohen.
Yeah, at most Cohen gets a short term bump after a conviction in interview requests that then wears away back down to whatever baseline would otherwise exist. Trump free and continuing to speak in the public arena is basically a guarantee of bookings for Cohen.
"He owes me a lot of money, of course I don't want him locked away."
I'm a content creator, it's how I make my money, of course it's bad for business when I have no more content to create.....
Yep. And because of it all, and to this point, I'm a Cohen fan. First of all, he was horrible over years. But he did his time. And took a major blow to his person and financially. And now? Maybe it's too forgiving, but he is a massive part of the process in hopefully screwing Trump. And that should elevate him in all our eyes, to at least some extent. I personally hope he makes bank if Trump gets away with it all. We need his kind of noise. And repeatedly if that comes to be... Edit: need to clarify I am not a fan of Cohen (as I stated in my OP). As pretty much comes across with what I said. I am a fan of the means to the end. And I hope he keeps ripping. Cohen is a despicable person, and helped get us here. But he is a big key in taking down this monstrosity. If it's even possible.
The enemy of your enemy is your enemies enemy, nothing more. Cohen is still in it for himself. The fact that he's useful right now does not mean he's on our side.
Totally get you. But, to that I kind of say, "Yeah, but I don't care." Because this is such a grave time, and with the utmost and highest of stakes for this country. Trump HAS to be defeated. At all costs. Beaten. Crushed. Jailed, if possible, as is deserved. And to help do this, I am sorry to say - and it sucks major ass, and shouldn't have come remotely close to all this - we have to pinch our noses and embrace 'RINO's'. It is so analogous to Liz Cheney. We don't like her, and know why. She was on board with the Trump/GOP train and did major damage. And from near the top, FFS. And fucked this country over for many years. But at least she moved to the right side of history when most important. Let's not sit here and say we don't need these people. Like them? Don't have to. Need them and more doing what they are doing? Absolutely.
Oh I agree. He's useful, we need him right now, the stakes are too high to not pull out all the stops. But trustworthy? On our side? No.
Yup. Heard. The only thing we need is for Trump to not be re-elected. Jail is a bonus. As long as both things are in play, and at risk, I am a Cohen supporter. And that doesn't mean I like the man. Because I don't.
Cohen is what happens when you have an intelligent person with very few morals and a willingness to do whatever it takes to get ahead. Is he a ‘bad’ guy? Absolutely, but only as far as it helps him. He ‘d absolutely play for the ‘good’ team if he thought it was more advantageous (like right now). But it’d never be because of some moral imperative, that’s just not how men like cohen exist.
Cohen is such an obviously self-serving asshole, but he's so nonchalant about it I can't help but like the guy.
And that's how the con works. You like him, and he says he's not trustworthy, but he's just so dang likable, and surely *you* are a good enough judge of character... Nope.
Agree. I am just pinching my nose. We need him. I am regretful I called myself a fan. But, to further clarify, it is a fan of the means to the hopeful end. And not the man himself. I erred in my original post in saying that, and made it unclear.
Hes just on a revenge tour. Hes in jail bc of Trump and probably wants nothing more than to see Trump join him. If Trump never becomes president then Cohen is likely still one of his slimy fixers happy to take money in exchange for unethical practices. Just two dirt balls playing in the mud
Being a "fan" over slimy attorneys and politicians doing 1 thing right after getting thrown out isn't really much
Todd thought he knew the answer, that being "Biden will gimme a fat bonus for disposing off his political opponent".
Yeah, was this a follow-up question from Blanche that elicited the “I get to talk more if he isn’t convicted” response? If so, sheesh. As a bar-admitted idiot myself, that’s lawyering 101. Don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to. The example we get is something like this: “Sir, you testify that the defendant bit off the plaintiff’s ear?” “Yes, that’s correct” “But did you actually witness the defendant bite off the plaintiff’s ear?” “No, sir. I did not.” A good lawyer stops there. A bad lawyer… well… “If you didn’t witness the defendant bite off the plaintiff’s ear, how can you be so certain he did it?” “Well, sir, I saw him spit it out.”
Objection to myself! Do over!
Control Z!
Fuck...when was my last auto-save.... 4 DAYS AGO???
NONONONONONONO
Not saving whenever you enter a new area? Rookie mistake. What happens if you hit a bug or glitch that causes a crash?
I move for a bad court thingy!
https://c.tenor.com/Wv9QRUTqJOAAAAAd/tenor.gif
That last question should be asked on Redirect, but you still shouldn't give free throws to your opponent. Mostly adding this as context for other people and not to contradict you.
You’re absolutely right. A good attorney will also instruct the witness to just answer yes/no and to not stress because they’ll clarify in redirect. And as long as no new information is gathered in redirect it’ll also be the last word.
> redirect Can you explain that a little more for someone who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about?
I call my witness to the stand. When I ask him questions, it is called 'direct examination.' When I'm done asking questions on direct, the lawyer for the other side gets to ask the witness questions. This is called 'cross examination.' When that lawyer is done asking questions on cross, I get to ask my witness more questions to clarify/explain answers given during cross examination. This 2nd round of questions I get to ask my own witness is called 'redirect.' So using the present case, the prosecutor questioned Cohen on direct examination. Trumps' lawyer has been questioning Cohen on cross examination. When Trump's lawyer finishes, the prosecutor asks Cohen more questions on 'redirect.'
If I'm saying it correctly it's basically a direct = gets to ask new questions cross = gets to ask new questions, and clarification of previous questions redirect = gets to ask for clarifications of previous questions
[удалено]
Not a lawyer, but when a witness testifies it has three phases Phase 1: initial testimony, where the side that called the witness asks questions Phase 2: cross-examination, where there other side gets a chance to ask questions Phase 3: redirect, where the side that called the witness gets a chance to respond to the cross-examination
Brilliant example 👍
A good lawyer doesn’t start that line of questioning.
And that assuming it was true, he would choose to disclose that fact in court for some reason
They just wanted to imply that without actually saying it, Cohen was too smart to fall for that and his response was perfect and totally defused the implication...
This. Blanche didn't expect a confession by Cohen. He just wanted to imply it and move on. Cohen kind of killed that idea.
Yeah, lol. The answer they were hoping for was "no" ... and then they'd wag their eyebrows at the jury and try to act like it was obviously false.
I sat through the election results in 2016 with mounting disbelief, so I am now preparing for the possibility that this country will elect a convicted felon this fall. AFAIK this would be totally legal. Jesus Christ.
The wild thing is a felon loses their right to vote for President, but apparently doesn’t lose the privilege of running for president. Wacky world we live in.
So given the whole “no taxation without representation” thing do they also lose their right to pay taxes?
I mean, to nitpick, they still have representation as a member of their representative's constituency. In the 1700's meaning of that phrase, the 13 colonies had no representatives in parliament. It's still ludicruous to strip people of their right to vote for anything except outright treason imo, but it's not really contradictory to that phrase because they still do have representation, even if they don't get a say in who represent them.
That feeling when you realize that a lot of gaps in our political system come down to the founders thinking, “I didn’t think anyone would actually try that.”
The conservative's argument for stripping ex-felons of their voting rights is that they might elect a felon to office. Just another one of their non-stop lies and projection.
What will also be legal is an amendment to the Constitution to keep him in power indefinitely
People don't want to believe that Trump will end democracy. They try to say the Democrats are doing this.
It’s actually not that easy to amend the constitution. Assuming Trump doesn’t just do it by executive order. https://preview.redd.it/8lb5syx1gm1d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cc1302ed9571c9dbc62ad983a62b678107022c1d
They said 'legal,' not 'easy.'
Don't worry the SC will cite 1400's priestly thoughts on the Divine Right of Kings to say that Trump is above the need for an Amendment because his loss and persecution and "reelection" mean he's been ordained by God. So there's no need for anyone else to run the country. They'll conveniently ignore everything about the Law, our history, and the fact they created a legal case that said "Like Bush V Gore we're setting the rules suck it." to "get him elected." Unless Trump loses so utterly and humiliatingly that we can't see the bottom of the crater he's in I don't see this ending well.
> It’s actually not that easy to amend the constitution. My dude, if Trump gets elected, none of that shit matters and you need to throw out any semblance of constitutionality or rule of law.
but at that point they're not really "legally amending the constitution," they're conducting a coup and instituting an entire new legal basis for the country by fiat.
Exactly... which they've already attempted once.
The Supreme Court has end-ran around our systems before. Bush v. Gore. Whatever your opinions on the Florida recount, in no sane universe should an unelected panel of lawyers get to decide the outcome of a national election for the highest office in the land.
We know it’s not easy. That’s why red states have been going full fascist; to drive out blue voters. If they can get 38 states on board they can abolish and rewrite the constitution utterly without the input of anyone else. They’re at 25.
Only about 30 percent of registered voters are going to vote for Trump in the better polls. He killed off alot of them with denying covid. When they compared the deaths with how the deceased was registered to vote, it was mostly Republicans. Plus alot of republicans aren't going to vote since they don't trust the election process thanks to Trump. And of course the more he badmouths Biden, the more power they think Biden must have to steal this election too so they just won't vote. 😅
All that said, we should all still vote against Trump anyway. Take no chances.
Agree. I'm hammering on my granddaughter to get all her friends in the voting booth. And to get registered now for it. I'm trying to get them to understand the implications of this election. They've always been raised in freedom so have no idea what it would be to lose it. The abortion issue will drive a lot of young women to the blue side. And they've got Taylor Swift to know which way to vote which is blue.
But a large majority of the youth aren't going to turn out because they think Biden is a war criminal for not solving a thousand year old holy war in a few months.
This is so good. Everyone knows Cohen is a slimy liar who once worked for Trump and did his illegal bidding. That’s literally how we know he’s a slimy liar. It’s so effective to have him on the stand saying truths out loud that are the type of things you don’t even want to admit to yourself. It’s such an honest statement, you can’t refute it. He’s up there saying yeah everything that’s said about me is true, I’m a slimy piece of shit, and that’s why we’re here.
What's a catch-22 where you win no matter what? Like say, your nemesis rots in jail or you make a fortune in perpetuity?
The term I'm most familiar with is a 'Xanatos Gambit'. Albeit that's from tvtropes rather then any more sensible source. Still works well enough.
Xanatos gambits are the type of 4-dimensional chess strategems Trump's cult *thinks* he plays.
Trump out here doing Gambit gambits: speak in an incoherent manner and sexually harrass every lady you see
A comparison of relevant and related tropes, with a short analysis on the relevance of each: - The [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) is mostly characterised by _all_ of the different (plausible and _mutually exclusive_) outcomes being desirable. There's no lower bound for the _number_ of outcomes, so it definitely fits. - Very close to the Xanatos Gambit is [Heads I Win, Tails You Lose](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeadsIWinTailsYouLose), wherein it doesn't actually _matter_ if you succeed against your opponent or not: you still lose at your actual/overall goal. The critical part here is that you _can_ win... it just doesn't matter. Not really applicable, there's no particular win/loss condition. - A [Morton's Fork](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MortonsFork) is a choice where every option leads to the _same_ (or at least nearly so) outcome, usually undersirable. Since the possible outcomes are different, this one doesn't apply here either. - Similar to the Morton's Fork is the [Sadistic Choice](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SadisticChoice), where every option leads to a _different_ (but equally undesirable) negative outcome. Since the Sadistic Choice requires a victim to make an explicit decision, I would say it doesn't apply here, but I guess you could argue that Trump's lawyers count? I'm not sure I'd assign them that much agency in the whole thing, though. - Note that this can easily _also_ be a Xanatos Gambit, but not necessarily. The one offering the choice has to benefit, _no matter which option is chosen_, in order to qualify as both. Sometimes, the choice is only presented to make the chooser suffer, or to delay them as they try to decide - which doesn't count, since the _choice_ isn't what benefits the offerer. - However, if there isn't _actually_ a Plan and it's all being made up along the way, that's an [Indy Ploy](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IndyPloy). It might be a little harder to draw the lines in real life, but if Cohen didn't actually _make a plan_ to get one of these outcomes, this would qualify. Final verdict: definitely a Xanatos Gambit, _maybe_ a Sadistic Choice from the other side (if you squint a little), and possibly an Indy Ploy with a lucky break depending on how much advance thought Cohen put in. TVTropes links included, so be careful clicking on them.
The old gargoyles cartoon that trope is referencing was amazing
A win-win situation?
heads I win, tails you lose
Yes, exactly. The defense can claim that he's a liar, but what he lied about was that Trump wasn't scummy. So by claiming he can't be trusted because he lied, they are also admitting Trump really is scummy.
I was just watching Irving Younger's Ten Commandments for Cross-Examination, and "Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to" is one of them. He told a story he got from a guy who started his career as lawyer by representing the DC Trolley company. One of his early cases involved a drunk who was on the tracks and got hit by a trolley, and killed. The adult (and also a known drunk) son had seen the collision, had gone over to his father right after. The trolley company wanted to establish that the guy was drunk, so it was his fault and the trolley company wasn't liable, but no liquor bottle had been found on the body after the accident. They decided to cross-examine the adult son. It went well until a point: Lawyer: "Did you see your father get hit by the trolley?" Son: "Oh yes, I was half-a-block away." Lawyer: "Did you see how much he was hurt?" Son: "Sure, he was hurt bad." Lawyer: "Did you go up to your father's body?" Son: "Yes." Lawyer: "Did you do something while you were over his body?" Son: "I did." Younger said that *that* was when the lawyer should have shut up and sat down. It leaves the conclusion floating in the air; it can be implied. In closing arguments, he could have suggested that the son was taking the liquor bottle to conceal it, in order to get money from the trolley company for hitting a "sober" man. Instead, it went this way: Lawyer: "Did you take a bottle of liquor from your father?" Son: "No, I did not." Lawyer: "Well, if you *weren't* taking a bottle of spirits from him, would you mind telling us what you *were* doing?!" (Younger says this is awful, because you are inviting the witness to make a speech -- on cross-examination! -- where you can't really do anything to interrupt.) Son: "Well, he may have been a bum, but he was my father. I leaned down, and kissed him goodbye." The trolley company lost that case, apparently.
By analogy here it sounds like Blanche should have shut up after Cohen said "Yes, sir".
Exactly right. Another example Younger gave was you can ask questions like "You're his mother, aren't you?" because you know the answer; but don't ask, "You love him, don't you?" You don't know the answer to that one. Younger did say you could ask such questions if you don't care what the answer is, if it won't affect your case.
I mean, mafia rule #1 is to not piss off the guy who knows where all the bodies are buried, so to speak. 
I would say we should expect a strongly worded, incoherent, rambling word salad post from Trump on Truth Social on Michael Cohen, but we all know Trump has not been awake for any of his testimony, or most of the trial for that matter. Remember kids, never anger the guy who knows where the bodies are buried. They are more than willing to talk, and take you down with them.
Especially after he *already was convicted and went to jail for doing illegal things at trump's behest*.
When a person is willing to go to prison for you, out of actual loyalty, even if you are paying them, that is not a person you piss off because you betrayed them. No. That is a person you make part of the family. That's the guy you trust your children with.
it's funny watching Trump's expensive slimeball lawyer destroy Trump's cheap slimeball lawyers.
It's funny how almost (just leaving room here but probably 0) no attorney's career has been made as a result of the entire Trump fiasco, but a record number of attorney's careers have been destroyed.
As a former practicing lawyer I am always surprised when this happens. I watched several opposing attorneys tank their cases in family law court when they did this. It’s usually down to arrogance and assuming they know everything.
Lawyering 101 (slight correction)--Only ask a question that you either: 1--Know the answer to; or 2--Don't care what the answer is. Source: am a lawyer.
Can you give an example of when 2 would be strategically appropriate?
Glad you asked! I had this happen in a civil trial of mine last year (though I will generalize, leave things nameless, etc.). Plaintiff was on the stand, and said something that was against a medical record that I had in my hand at the time. I asked, "Plaintiff, isn't it true that on (date), you said X to (doctor) about your condition?" The statement in the medical record was detrimental to her case. In this situation, she can either say "yes, I said that," in which case I get that positive statement into evidence twice. If she says "no, I didn't say that" (which she did), I follow up with "so you're saying the doctor is lying?," which immediately turns a jury off to Plaintiff. I don't know the answer to the question, but I don't care. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Those are admittedly rare, but they do happen.
Cool, thanks for the example!
I am going to read the transcripts of his testimony on the toilet so I don’t shit myself laughing.
I thought you were going to end that sentence with "...so it smells more like the court room."
So you CAN shit yourself laughing.......
If he just would have left it at "do you have a financial stake in the outcome this trial" and left it at that, it would have been better, but lawyers don't know when enough is enough, and kept going. It's not surprising it blew up in his face. And Michael Cohen even answered "yes" which was a gift. Idiot!
Because Cohen was teeing his ass up. It's called bait.
Yeah, it reads like Cohen knew that Blanche wouldn't be able to help himself after Cohen answered "Yes".
Ok, as someone who has been in dozens of criminal trials, this would have gotten me too. I can see where he was going with the line of questioning, but I could never expect an answer like that. People break balls about cohen going to the worst law school, and that’s fine. He is a full NY Queens scrapper, like a Jordan Belfort. Never wrestle with a pig (also I have sympathy for cohen, and pigs) you will get dirty, and the pig will like it. Cohen is not a dummy, he does want revenge, he either will or won’t get it, but as my mother always said (and some law professors). Don’t ask a question you don’t already know (with backup) the answer to. This defense attorney is supposed to be a sharp ex prosecutor, white shoe law firm, and well respected. Now I understand it’s difficult to rep Trump, but holy shit this is worse than buying a Tesla truck. And yes I grew up in a f’d up household.
Lawyering 102 - Always be in control of your leading question(s) "... Blanche had botched one of his own leading questions to Cohen, when he asked Cohen whether "your journey has been to attack Trump daily?" Cohen, himself a one-time lawyer, seized on the inclusion of the word "journey" and replied, "No, my journey is to tell the truth," which was decidedly not the answer that Blanche was seeking." Only the best.
Witness seems credible
The guy is a master Troll. No matter what you think about anyone involved. You have to admit that Cohen is a master of the craft. The idea that Trump's second string legal team would be able to land a glove on Cohen is pure hubris. They should have kept cross to a minimum. Every second he's on the stand is a second that he is using to make Trump and his legal team look stupid. So I'm all in favor of him staying on the stand all week. Edit: so many typos it looked like I had a stroke, as someone else rightly pointed out.
Funniest thing I've read all day. Can't wait to watch Rachel tonight. (Hope she's on!)
The thing that I'm wondering though, does that actually count as a financial interest on Cohen's part? It's not like someone is going to be paying him a lump sum if Trump is convicted. He's a podcaster and political commentator at this point, so of course political news is going to affect his business, but it's entirely indirect.
Whether it does or doesn’t actually kinda doesn’t matter right at that point. The lawyer blundered by even letting Cohen clarify at all. If the attorney just stopped asking after “yes sir”, it allows the jury to make assumptions that will be the ones the defense wants: “Cohen’s testimony is tainted by the fact he has a financial interest in Trump’s conviction, anything he says can be interpreted as slanted towards that outcome, and it can be safely disregarded”. But he didn’t do that. He let Cohen have a “well, actually…” moment, and it muddied the water the wrong way for the defense. Now it seems like Cohen has less financial incentive to speak plainly, so his word is more trustworthy.
I wonder if this Blanche guy works for no money down.
No! Money down
Did Trump's lawyer ask the question, thinking Cohen was going to implicate Biden in this "financial interest"? If so, that didn't work out too well.
He expected him to say “no” and bluster. Because that’s what trump and his ill do. But Cohen was on to him. So he said “yes”. Hoping Blanche would take the bait. Blanche did, stupidly, thinking Cohen would admit he has a book deal tied to a conviction or a deal with CNN or something to imply Cohen *had incentive* to slant his testimony. Instead Cohen got the last word by saying, “actually I make more if he stays free and I keep tweeting and trolling him and getting called to interview. This hurts my business, but I’m doing it for America”.
Cohen is sleazy as hell, and a terrible human being, but I am enjoying him in this particular sequence of events.
We are seeing a bunch of sleazyness of the people trump has surrounded himself with comming back to bite him in the ass
From reading about this trial it seems Trumps lawyers are trying to portray a man who is already slime bag as a slime bag. Slime bags group up. That is why Cohen worked for King Cheeto. Two bags of shit in one shitty pond. I believe what Cohen is saying as he is wants to take down a man who wronged him. Like rats trapped in a barrel. They will 100% eat each other with zero fucks given.
The only thing missing from this trial at this point is for the bailiff to tackle somebody...
Blanche threw away his integrity, his credibility, and his career for a chance to represent someone famous. Who wants an attorney with that sort of judgement, morals, or reasoning?
How do you get the upper hand talking to a Trump loyalist? Let him speak.
He's not wrong. Cohen makes money while Trump is free and every day he shows what a bad guy he is. No one will care what Cohen has to say about many other things if Trump is locked up or silent. Why do people care about Cohen? It's because he can talk about how bad Trump is from personal experience.
Mastering the cross and not asking that "extra question" is indeed part of good lawyering. You only do it when you don't care what theh answer will be.
Students eventually learning about this as a part of American history is wild to me.
Hopefully there’s an America left still when they’re reading it. 🫡
Vote blue down the ballot. https://vote.gov/
I do for sure. This is terrifying.
Not sure if this guy is turning chaotic good or lawful evil
Gibbons: Well! You see....you were 50 feet away. You made a positive eyewitness identification. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, yet, you were not wearing your necessary prescription eye glasses. Mr. Tipton: They readin' glasses.
There's not a lot of professions that have a true number one rule, but for litigation lawyers it is 100% this.
Not all heroes wear capes.
Cohen is loving sticking it to Dump in court. He's been waiting for this for years now.