The stench of deception hung in the air as he sat in the front row of a Manhattan courtroom.
Sitting on the witness stand, no more than a few feet from me, I watched in disbelief as Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, told the jury one apparent lie after another.
When asked by prosecutors on Monday whether he would benefit financially if Trump were convicted, Cohen denied it.
This is demonstrably false.
Cohen is looking for a reality show to cash in on his newfound fame. He has admitted to making more than $3 million from anti-Trump books and podcasts and sells products that portray the former president behind bars.
All of these companies would be undermined by a Trump acquittal.
Then there’s Cohen’s confession that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organizations by deceptively overcharging for his services.
I wouldn’t buy a used car from this man, much less trust his testimony to send a presidential candidate to prison.
The stench of deception hung in the air as he sat in the front row of a Manhattan courtroom. (Above) Alan Dershowitz attends Trump’s trial in Manhattan on May 20, 2024
Cohen is looking for a reality show to cash in on his newfound fame. He has admitted to making more than $3 million from anti-Trump books and podcasts and sells products that portray the former president behind bars.
Sitting on the witness stand, no more than a few feet from me, I watched in disbelief as Michael Cohen told the jury one apparent lie after another.
Most significantly, I have heard no evidence that Trump committed a crime by falsely recording his legal expenses to conceal a payment of money to protect his 2016 presidential campaign.
The only testimony that even remotely speaks to that allegation is Cohen’s claim that Trump approved an alleged payment to Stormy Daniels during a 96-second phone call.
But Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, got Cohen to admit that that phone conversation was, at least in part, about a person who had been harassing Cohen.
‘Did you have enough time at one minute and 36 seconds to update… about all the harassing phone calls and the update about Stormy Daniels?’ -Blanca asked.
“I think I also spoke to Mr. Trump and told him that everything related to Stormy Daniels was being worked on and that it was going to be resolved,” Cohen responded.
“We’re not asking you to believe,” Blanche responded. “This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.”
In fact, they don’t.
They want to hear the truth.
Never in my 60 years of practicing law and teaching and writing about the American legal system have I seen such a weak criminal fraud case.
It is impossible to say whether a jury of 12 New Yorkers will believe this fabulist and self-confessed thief. But I have no doubt that the judge in this trial should not allow it to continue.
Instead, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchán should throw it out and rule that Cohen’s testimony is so unreliable that the jury should not even consider it.
“We are not asking you to believe,” Blanche responded. “This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.” In fact, they don’t. They want to hear the truth.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan should throw it out and rule that Cohen’s testimony is so unreliable that the jury should not even consider it.
This judge has the power to do just that. “If the charges are not legitimate, he should be acquitted,” to paraphrase a mantra from the OJ Simpson case.
But it won’t.
Because even more shocking than the pathetic flaws of this case is the palpable bias this judge has against Trump.
After the defense called its key witness, Cohen’s former legal counsel Robert Costello, Judge Merchan handed down ruling after ruling denying Costello the ability to speak, inexplicably dismissing his testimony as hearsay and irrelevant.
I and other lawyers watching in the audience were shocked.
Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to confront his accuser and that is done through the testimony of others.
Judge Merchan denied Trump that right by unfairly limiting Costello’s testimony.
The judge truly revealed his apparent unhinged bias against Trump when he exploded after Costello, himself a lawyer, expressed surprise at the baffling rulings.
Merchan lost control over the perceived slight and angrily ordered the judicial police to clear the room.
They never asked me to leave, so I stayed. I wish the public could have seen what I witnessed, because I think the judge’s bias against Trump came through loud and clear.
‘Will you raise your eyebrows at me?’ Merchan yelled at Costello. ‘Did you stare at me?’
He looked like a paranoid schizophrenic. A madman in the street. The psychopath from the movie Taxi Driver.
After the defense called its key witness, Cohen’s former legal counsel Robert Costello (above, right in drawing), Judge Merchan issued ruling after ruling denying Costello the ability to speak, inexplicably dismissing his testimony. like a rumor and irrelevant.
I and other lawyers watching in the audience were shocked. Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to confront his accuser and that is done through the testimony of others.
The judge revealed his apparent unhinged bias against Trump when he exploded after Costello, a lawyer, expressed surprise at the baffling rulings.
Merchan then threatened to exclude all of Costello’s testimony against Cohen from the trial.
I was stunned.
On the one hand, Costello’s behavior was not egregious and he is allowed to act surprised.
But more than that, the idea that a judge would punish Trump by denying him the opportunity to present evidence about a witness’s actions is absurd. It’s not ethical. It is unconstitutional.
Trump is not responsible for Costello’s behavior.
It was one of the most shocking displays of bias by a judge I have ever seen.
So could Trump be convicted despite all this? Of course he can.
The Manhattan group is largely made up of people who voted against Trump and do not want him elected in 2024.
But the weakness of the prosecution’s case and the surprising and widespread bias exhibited by this judge against Trump will give him an excellent opportunity to appeal if he is found guilty.
The only question that remains is whether a New York state court will grant an expedited appeal request, so that any apparent miscarriages of justice can be reversed before the American people cast their votes.
