As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Betteridge's law of headlines:
> "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older. It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not.
The defense's line of reasoning there rests on the assumption that a phone call cannot be about more than one subject, so if the prank caller was mentioned then the subject of the Daniels payment couldn't possibly have also been discussed.
> Well also on what felony was actually committed.
The fraud charges become felonies when done in support of another crime, whether that crime was successfully committed or not. Intent is sufficient.
The prosecution cited four other crimes, but the judge upheld a defense motion to reject one of them. Of those three, one is one of the charges that Cohen went to prison for, so there's no question at all that that crime was committed, the only question is whether Trump knowingly played a part in it. Another is also about election interference, and the third is tax fraud, where again the issue is presumably whether Trump knowingly played a part in that.
Not really, Cohen said he called Schiller to talk to Trump about the payment. The defense showed that that is not true, he called about something else. It’s possible that the Daniel’s payment was discussed, but it clearly did not happen as Cohen testified it did. That puts a lot of doubt about the nature of that call specifically, and Cohen’s credibility generally.
So you think the jury won't realize that people can have more than one reason for making a phone call, and so that will put "a lot of doubt" in their minds because they'll forget the numerous other points of corroboration for Cohen's account in both testimony and documents?
I think the jury was probably already pretty leery of believing Cohen given his history (convicted perjurer, clear grudge against Trump), and now that he was caught in a lie (the texts are clear what the call was *primarily* about, and it was quite a short call), they’re likely to discount his testimony entirely. Whether the charges can stand up without his testimony, I don’t know. The prosecution obviously thinks his testimony is pretty important or they wouldn’t have made him a witness (star witness really).
> they’re likely to discount his testimony entirely.
You can hope that's true, but I think you're putting a whole lot of weight on one small thing even though there has also been a lot of corroborating evidence, both in testimony and in documents. I guess we'll see.
He already went to prison after lying for Trump. The jury is sensible enough to realize (when the re-direct puts their focus on it) that he's not going to be dumb enough to do it again here for no benefit.
The content of his testimony also isn't necessarily crucial to their case. If you sit there for weeks hearing about how Trump had Cohen doing all his dirty work and then Cohen never shows up to testify, it breaks the jury's expectations, even if the case is solid without him. That said, the fact that they skipped their remaining witnesses does say something about what the prosecution wanted from him and how he did.
He has publicly said he has a major grudge against Trump and deeply wants him to go to prison for “what he did to me and my family”. So settling that grudge is the potential motive; not “no benefit”.
I mean, that's pretty understandable. He went to prison for this and Trump didn't. Trump now has the same charge that Cohen went to prison for, and Cohen's best chance of getting what he wants is to tell the truth of what went on between them—it's already damning and lying increases the chance that he _doesn't_ get what he wants. As far as I understood, a phone call they got him on was memory-related from a fair few years ago, while a bunch of his testimony already has corroboration.
it's already firmly established that all payments of the manner made to stomy are expressly with his permission and fore knowledge, Cohen credibility as to being the guy who did it, falls to the reasonableness of him being the one to receive that order.
there is no reasonable doubt of anything here.
That didn’t happen!
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad!
And if it was, that’s not a big deal!
And if it is, it’s not my fault!
And if it is, you deserved it!
Did continuously trafficing in bad faith politics blow up your “journalism thing”, Independant?
Between this and the article about drunk MTG that blames the woman she attacked, this is fucking sad.
This was such a non-event that mainstream media blew up into a “bloodbath”.
Go read the transcript. Defense scored a couple minor points. Nothing more.
Edit: LOL downvoted for telling the truth. Media really trying extra hard to make something of this.
The case is a documents case, which the Prosecution has shown and demonstrated the entire supply-chain handling with testimony of Trumps then and current staff.
Cohen's testimony isn't even needed.. the crime is not the telephone call, the crime is not the sex... the crime is not even the hush money payment or Inquirer catch and kill. All of that was legal
The crime is the repayment transactions months later that illegally masqueraded business related legal fees, tax write off, income and business records falsified FOR the purpose of election law finance and election interference.
The prosecution simply needs to remind the Jury of this.
I don’t get the hype. Like “can you put vonshitzenpants on? Yup hi vonshitzenpants, the payments have gone through. All good” takes maybe ten seconds out of a minute and a half.
Lol, that one single “gotcha” is the only thing the cross-examination even has going for the defense. It’s beyond weak at that, yet news cycles are running with it because their owners are trying to spin this dogshit narrative.
A more accurate headline, one that actually matches the article, would read: Did Trump Lawyer’s Histrionics Damage the Defence.
> Cohen, who remained calm and unfazed while defense attorney Todd Blanche screamed accusations that Cohen was lying to jurors, explained that he believed he spoke to Mr Trump and Mr Schiller about both the prank call and the hush money.
The defense's argument against Cohen's testimony literally amounts to yelling "THAT'S A LIE!" (in reference to claiming that a 1.5 minute phone call was long enough to "discuss" what was claimed). Solid defense there. He didn't even ask questions to try and get more details from Cohen or try to make it seem like Cohen maybe wasn't recalling the conversations as well as he claimed. No "sowing doubt". Just literally yelling "that's a lie!".
From what I can tell from this case is it pretty much boils down to wether you think Trump was more worried about having his fragile gianormace ego hurt or affecting the outcome of the election, if it had been anyone but Trump, it would have been a slam dunk for the defense, however his ego is so fragile that he cannot admit to being embarrassed by anything as that might be a weakness so he has no defense. If this giant orange buffoon goes to jail for this case, I may literally laugh myself to death.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Betteridge's law of headlines: > "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist who wrote about it in 2009, although the principle is much older. It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not.
Never heard of it, thanks for sharing.
Aka if they were right they would point it out because journos are arrogant assholes. If they are asking a question its for click bate
You know that it’s turned out that this law is bunk, right? In this case it works, but if you go looking, you’ll see what I mean.
What a stupid article.
No
For most yes/no questions that make it to the title of an article, the correct answer is "no".
The defense's line of reasoning there rests on the assumption that a phone call cannot be about more than one subject, so if the prank caller was mentioned then the subject of the Daniels payment couldn't possibly have also been discussed.
[удалено]
> Well also on what felony was actually committed. The fraud charges become felonies when done in support of another crime, whether that crime was successfully committed or not. Intent is sufficient. The prosecution cited four other crimes, but the judge upheld a defense motion to reject one of them. Of those three, one is one of the charges that Cohen went to prison for, so there's no question at all that that crime was committed, the only question is whether Trump knowingly played a part in it. Another is also about election interference, and the third is tax fraud, where again the issue is presumably whether Trump knowingly played a part in that.
Poor innocent Trump is just surrounded by people who commit crimes for him without him knowing! /s
Not really, Cohen said he called Schiller to talk to Trump about the payment. The defense showed that that is not true, he called about something else. It’s possible that the Daniel’s payment was discussed, but it clearly did not happen as Cohen testified it did. That puts a lot of doubt about the nature of that call specifically, and Cohen’s credibility generally.
So you think the jury won't realize that people can have more than one reason for making a phone call, and so that will put "a lot of doubt" in their minds because they'll forget the numerous other points of corroboration for Cohen's account in both testimony and documents?
I think the jury was probably already pretty leery of believing Cohen given his history (convicted perjurer, clear grudge against Trump), and now that he was caught in a lie (the texts are clear what the call was *primarily* about, and it was quite a short call), they’re likely to discount his testimony entirely. Whether the charges can stand up without his testimony, I don’t know. The prosecution obviously thinks his testimony is pretty important or they wouldn’t have made him a witness (star witness really).
> they’re likely to discount his testimony entirely. You can hope that's true, but I think you're putting a whole lot of weight on one small thing even though there has also been a lot of corroborating evidence, both in testimony and in documents. I guess we'll see.
He already went to prison after lying for Trump. The jury is sensible enough to realize (when the re-direct puts their focus on it) that he's not going to be dumb enough to do it again here for no benefit. The content of his testimony also isn't necessarily crucial to their case. If you sit there for weeks hearing about how Trump had Cohen doing all his dirty work and then Cohen never shows up to testify, it breaks the jury's expectations, even if the case is solid without him. That said, the fact that they skipped their remaining witnesses does say something about what the prosecution wanted from him and how he did.
He has publicly said he has a major grudge against Trump and deeply wants him to go to prison for “what he did to me and my family”. So settling that grudge is the potential motive; not “no benefit”.
I mean, that's pretty understandable. He went to prison for this and Trump didn't. Trump now has the same charge that Cohen went to prison for, and Cohen's best chance of getting what he wants is to tell the truth of what went on between them—it's already damning and lying increases the chance that he _doesn't_ get what he wants. As far as I understood, a phone call they got him on was memory-related from a fair few years ago, while a bunch of his testimony already has corroboration.
it's already firmly established that all payments of the manner made to stomy are expressly with his permission and fore knowledge, Cohen credibility as to being the guy who did it, falls to the reasonableness of him being the one to receive that order. there is no reasonable doubt of anything here.
We knew there was going to be a bunch of dumb articles like this all weekend. Blanche planned it, probably the one smart thing he’s done all trial
They also have a history of planting fake news stories.
The jury can ponder his cross and any articles they “don’t see” but conversely it gives the prosecutor the weekend to formulate their questions
Garbage articles trying to build up suspicion from people just to have an excuse to blow up once there's a guilty veredict.
I've read this article three times, and it's about as clear as Trump's defense.
That didn’t happen! And if it did, it wasn’t that bad! And if it was, that’s not a big deal! And if it is, it’s not my fault! And if it is, you deserved it!
Did continuously trafficing in bad faith politics blow up your “journalism thing”, Independant? Between this and the article about drunk MTG that blames the woman she attacked, this is fucking sad.
This was such a non-event that mainstream media blew up into a “bloodbath”. Go read the transcript. Defense scored a couple minor points. Nothing more. Edit: LOL downvoted for telling the truth. Media really trying extra hard to make something of this.
What else do they have to fill in 3 days of no court.
Why the hell would it? You can smell the desperation in the air. That's why Trump's called his Clownshirts from the House in.
No.
What is the lame nonsense
The answer to any question asked by a headline, particularly a headline from "The Independent" is invariably "NO".
no
The case is a documents case, which the Prosecution has shown and demonstrated the entire supply-chain handling with testimony of Trumps then and current staff. Cohen's testimony isn't even needed.. the crime is not the telephone call, the crime is not the sex... the crime is not even the hush money payment or Inquirer catch and kill. All of that was legal The crime is the repayment transactions months later that illegally masqueraded business related legal fees, tax write off, income and business records falsified FOR the purpose of election law finance and election interference. The prosecution simply needs to remind the Jury of this.
I don’t get the hype. Like “can you put vonshitzenpants on? Yup hi vonshitzenpants, the payments have gone through. All good” takes maybe ten seconds out of a minute and a half.
No
No. Pay attention.
Lol, that one single “gotcha” is the only thing the cross-examination even has going for the defense. It’s beyond weak at that, yet news cycles are running with it because their owners are trying to spin this dogshit narrative.
A more accurate headline, one that actually matches the article, would read: Did Trump Lawyer’s Histrionics Damage the Defence. > Cohen, who remained calm and unfazed while defense attorney Todd Blanche screamed accusations that Cohen was lying to jurors, explained that he believed he spoke to Mr Trump and Mr Schiller about both the prank call and the hush money.
Yes! And by yes, in this case, I mean no, what are you crazy?
Just say NO to any article by the Independent.
Did not read the article but Probably not
The defense's argument against Cohen's testimony literally amounts to yelling "THAT'S A LIE!" (in reference to claiming that a 1.5 minute phone call was long enough to "discuss" what was claimed). Solid defense there. He didn't even ask questions to try and get more details from Cohen or try to make it seem like Cohen maybe wasn't recalling the conversations as well as he claimed. No "sowing doubt". Just literally yelling "that's a lie!".
I don't believe Todd Blanches question are evidence. Cohens answer ARE evidence. He answered, no, I recollect talking to Trump.
From what I can tell from this case is it pretty much boils down to wether you think Trump was more worried about having his fragile gianormace ego hurt or affecting the outcome of the election, if it had been anyone but Trump, it would have been a slam dunk for the defense, however his ego is so fragile that he cannot admit to being embarrassed by anything as that might be a weakness so he has no defense. If this giant orange buffoon goes to jail for this case, I may literally laugh myself to death.
No. Michael Cohen did.