Cohen, Michael D (1966- )

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares139 Views

    Will Trump Get Jail Time? We Looked at Similar Cases to Find Out.

    by

    Donald J. Trump faces sentencing on Nov. 26. The election three weeks earlier may determine not only if he returns to the presidency, but if he ends up behind bars.In November, after voters decide whether to return Donald J. Trump to the White House, the judge who oversaw his criminal trial could send him to jail.And despite Mr. Trump’s political status, the judge has ample grounds to do so, a New York Times examination of dozens of similar cases shows.The former president’s unruly behavior at the trial, held in New York in April and May, makes him a candidate for jail time, as does his felony crime of falsifying business records: Over the past decade in Manhattan, more than a third of these convictions resulted in defendants spending time behind bars, The Times’s examination found. Across New York State, the proportion is even higher — about 42 percent of those convictions led to jail or prison time. More

    More stories

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Holy Cow, 34 for 45!

      by

      WASHINGTON — At Nativity grade school, we grew up steeped in the lore — and gore — of martyrs. For their brave deeds and words, these men and women were stoned, crucified, beheaded, stripped of all their skin, shot with arrows and cooked alive on a red-hot griddle.So I’m a little surprised my siblings would somehow put Donald Trump in those martyrs’ sainted company.My sister and brother, disturbed by Trump’s constant chaos and slashing insults, saw their hopes for Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley evaporate.I called my Republican sibs Friday to see if hearing the word “guilty” ring out 34 times in a New York courtroom had finally severed them from Trump; they are, after all, children of a police detective.My sister, Peggy, said she couldn’t sleep all night.“You decided you can’t vote for a felon?” I asked.“I wasn’t going to vote for Trump,” she said. “But now I am because I thought this whole thing was a sham.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump se convierte en el primer expresidente condenado de EE. UU.

      by

      Un jurado de Manhattan determinó que el expresidente falsificó registros comerciales para ocultar un escándalo sexual que podría haber descarrilado su campaña presidencial de 2016.Donald Trump fue declarado culpable el jueves de falsificar registros comerciales para encubrir un escándalo sexual que amenazó con afectar su campaña presidencial de 2016, culminando un juicio excepcional que puso a prueba la resistencia del sistema judicial estadounidense y transformó al expresidente en un delincuente.El veredicto de culpabilidad en Manhattan —en todos los 34 cargos— resonará en toda la nación y el mundo porque marca el comienzo de una nueva era de la política presidencial. Trump llevará la mancha del veredicto durante su tercera contienda a la Casa Blanca, ya que los votantes ahora deberán elegir entre un presidente en funciones impopular y un delincuente convicto.Aunque antes era impensable que los estadounidenses eligieran a un delincuente como su líder, el comportamiento insurrecto de Trump deleita a sus simpatizantes mientras arrasa con las normas del país. Ahora, el hombre que se negó a aceptar su derrota electoral en 2020 ya está tratando de deslegitimar su condena, intentando afirmar la primacía de su poder político bruto sobre el Estado de derecho de la nación.Trump mostró poca emoción dentro del juzgado al conocer su destino, cerró los ojos y movió lentamente la cabeza mientras un silencio descendía sobre la sala del tribunal. Pero cuando salió, tenía la mandíbula tensa y se dirigió a las cámaras de televisión congregadas. Declaró que el veredicto era “una desgracia” y, con expresión sombría, proclamó: “El verdadero veredicto se dará el 5 de noviembre, por el pueblo”, refiriéndose al día de las elecciones.El juez que lideró el caso, Juan Merchan, dictará sentencia contra Trump el 11 de julio, pocos días antes de que se celebre la Convención Nacional Republicana que lo convertirá en el candidato presidencial del partido.Alvin Bragg, el fiscal que trabajó en el caso, declinó revelar el jueves si pediría una pena de prisión. El juez podría condenar a Trump a un máximo de cuatro años de cárcel, pero el expresidente podría ser condenado a libertad condicional, y es posible que nunca vea el interior de una celda. Su apelación podría prolongarse durante meses, o incluso más tiempo, y estará en libertad haciendo campaña por la presidencia mientras espera su castigo.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Hush-Money Case Heads to the Jury: Takeaways From Closing Arguments

      by

      As the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump began its seventh week, the prosecution and the defense made their final pitches to jurors, sending the landmark case into deliberations on Wednesday.A defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, spent three hours Tuesday hammering Michael D. Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness, including accusing him of perjury. He attacked Stormy Daniels, the porn star whose account of a tryst with Mr. Trump in 2006 set in motion the charges the former president faces.The prosecution countered with an even longer, more detailed summation, pushing into the evening. A prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, guided jurors through reams of evidence they had introduced and elicited, including testimony, emails, text messages and recordings.Mr. Trump, 77, is charged with falsifying 34 business records to hide Mr. Cohen’s reimbursement for a $130,000 hush-money payment he made to Ms. Daniels. Mr. Trump has denied the charges and the sexual encounter.Once deliberations begin Wednesday, no one knows how long they will take. If convicted, Mr. Trump — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — could face prison or probation.Here are five takeaways from closing arguments and Mr. Trump’s 21st day on trial.‘Michael Cohen is a liar’ was a refrain. It may be the defense’s best bet.“The human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”The Links Between Trump and 3 Hush-Money DealsHere’s how key figures involved in making hush-money payoffs on behalf of Donald J. Trump are connected.The Donald Trump Indictment, AnnotatedThe indictment unveiled in April 2023 centers on a hush-money deal with a porn star, but a related document alleges a broader scheme to protect Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Tongue-Lashing for a Defense Witness Isn’t Great News for Trump

      by

      Eight times a day during his felony trial, a former president of the United States must stand and honor 12 jurors and six alternates as they walk past, eyes straight ahead or down, casting no glances at him. It’s inspiring to watch these ordinary citizens as sovereign soldiers for justice.On Monday this calm processional was disrupted, as jurors were forced to hurry out after a witness for the defense mocked the authority of the court. Moments later, Justice Juan Merchan ordered the courtroom immediately cleared, and reporters fled in a frenzy.The reason for all of this was the testimony of Robert Costello, an astonishingly arrogant former federal prosecutor who has defended the likes of George Steinbrenner and Leona Helmsley, borrowing a little of his nasty affect from each.Michael Cohen testified earlier that Costello and Rudy Giuliani were assigned by Donald Trump to open a back channel to Cohen to keep him in the Trump fold.Costello testified before a friendly House subcommittee last week that Cohen was a liar. This apparently impressed Trump and — presto! — Costello was the first important witness the defense called after the prosecution rested.On direct examination, Costello did next to nothing for the defense beyond landing a few more mostly irrelevant blows on Cohen.On cross-examination by the prosecution, however, you could almost see steam coming out of Costello’s ears. The temerity of this lowly local female prosecutor asking him questions! Merchan ruled earlier that Costello could testify only on certain subjects. When Merchan sustained several objections from the prosecution and struck a couple of Costello’s answers from the record, Costello decided to play judge.He muttered “ridiculous” and “strike it” after disliking a question. An enraged Merchan excused the jury and said sharply, “I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom.” He continued, “You don’t say, ‘Geez,’ and you don’t say, ‘Strike it.’ And if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t give me side-eye and roll your eyes.”Merchan apparently didn’t want reporters to hear the rest of his tongue-lashing and cleared the courtroom.None of this was good for the defense, which struggled all day to build on Thursday’s success in making Cohen seem he was lying about the purpose of his calls to Trump in late October 2016. Cohen looked bad admitting he passed $20,000 in cash in a paper bag to Red Finch, a tech firm that uses algorithms to rig online polls. But Trump looked even worse by directing Red Finch to cheat his way onto CNBC’s list of the most famous business leaders of the 20th century. Classic Trump.Jurors may conclude that the whole bunch of ’em are liars and reasonably doubt every word out of all of their mouths. At this point, that may be Trump’s best hope of avoiding conviction. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      This Is What Worries Me About the Trump Trial

      by

      I can’t remember when I’ve been more disturbed by a criminal trial than I have been by the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. The prosecutors are painting a vivid picture of Trump as a vile and dishonest person, and the daily pilgrimages of Republican politicians to the Manhattan courthouse, in spite of horrific testimony against Trump, demonstrates that the party has a broken soul.At the same time, the underlying legal theory supporting the prosecution’s case remains dubious. The facts may be clear, but the law is anything but — and that could very well mean that the jury convicts Trump before the election, an appeals court reverses the conviction after the election, and millions of Americans, many of them non-MAGA, face yet another crisis of confidence in American institutions.Let’s first discuss the dreadful facts. Stormy Daniels’s testimony crystallized, better than that of any other witness, the prosecution’s theory that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to pay off Daniels to save his campaign and then fraudulently disguised the reimbursements. It helped answer a key question: Why would a known playboy, a person who has boasted of his affairs with his friends’ wives, suddenly be so keen to suppress details of his encounter with a porn star?Consider the timeline. On Oct. 7, 2016, the “Access Hollywood” story broke. The Washington Post released the infamous recording in which Trump told Billy Bush, one of the show’s hosts, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” Trump went on, saying he could grab women by the genitals. “You can do anything.”The next day, a representative for Daniels told The National Enquirer that Daniels was willing to talk on the record about her encounter with Trump. We now know from Daniels’s sworn testimony that her story was going to essentially affirm the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump used his star power to draw in Daniels and then exploited her.At trial, she did not testify to a frivolous or joyful encounter with Trump; she testified to something far more distressing. He invited her to his hotel room, and after she went to the bathroom, she walked out to find Trump on the bed in just his boxers and a T-shirt. She did not claim he forced himself on her, but she said she left “shaking” and testified that she was ashamed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Why the Manhattan Trial Is Probably Helping Trump

      by

      Throughout the Republican primary campaign (such as it was), it was perfectly clear that the multiple indictments of Donald Trump helped him consolidate support. This was a source of moral exasperation to liberals, but their bafflement coexisted with the hope that what played well with the MAGA faithful would have the opposite effect in the general election. Trump’s cries of persecution might rally conservatives in a primary, but the trials themselves would help Joe Biden cruise to re-election.The trial that we’re actually getting, the prosecution of Trump for falsified business records related to hush money payments related to his assignation with the porn star Stormy Daniels, could theoretically still have that effect; a guilty verdict could shake loose a couple of points from Trump’s modest but consistent polling lead.But watching the trial play out so far, it seems just as likely that as in the primaries, so now in the general election: Any political effect from being charged and tried is probably working marginally in Trump’s favor.First, consider how this trial plays if you are not paying close attention to the legal details. Follow the coverage casually, the headlines about Daniels’s testimony especially, and it appears that Trump is on trial for cheating on his wife in a distinctly sordid way and then trying to conceal it — for being a political figure, a candidate for high office, and lying about sex.As it happens, America spent a pretty important period of time litigating the question of whether it’s a serious offense for a lecherous politician (one whose campaign apparatus notoriously labored to prevent “bimbo eruptions”) to conceal an inappropriate sexual liaison. Indeed, we even litigated the question of whether committing brazen perjury while trying to conceal a sexual liaison is a serious offense. And the country answered this question by embracing the consensus position of American liberalism at the time and offering Bill Clinton tolerance, forgiveness, absolution.Admittedly some politically engaged Americans are too young to directly recall the Clinton presidency. But the Lewinsky affair still casts a meaningful cultural shadow, and many of the Trump trial’s headlines cast the prosecutors in a Kenneth Starr-like part. Nothing really new is being revealed about Trump’s conduct here; the country already knows that he’s a philanderer and scoundrel. Instead the revelations are about the seeming hypocrisy of his political enemies, and how easily the former Democratic indifference to lying-about-sex gave way to prurience when it offered a path to getting Trump.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 16, 2024

      by

      M. Cohen
      –
      Cross/Blanche
      3839
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      And you had been hearing on television that they were
      dangling pardons. So, you directed your lawyer, hey, find out
      if I can get a pardon. I want this nightmare to end, right?
      A Not if I can get a pardon. If the President was going
      to be doing these pre-pardons.
      But you
      —
      you testified that you were 100 percent
      open to accepting it, anything to end this, right?
      8
      A
      Yes, sir.
      9
      And so
      —
      and you did that with a couple of your
      10
      11
      A
      12
      13
      14
      15
      16
      17
      18
      19
      A
      20
      21
      22
      23
      lawyers, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Costello, correct?
      Mr. Costello was never my lawyer.
      Well, you asked Mr. Costello, putting aside whether he
      was your lawyer, you asked Mr. Costello to reach out to people
      in the administration, including Mr. Giuliani, about the
      possibility of a pardon?
      A We spoke about it.
      And as part of your conversation with him, you asked
      him to reach out to Mr. Giuliani and explore it, correct?
      Yes, sir.
      And so, when you testified under oath less than one
      year later, February, on February 27th, 2019, that you never
      asked for, nor would you ever accept a pardon, that was a lie,
      wasn’t it?
      24
      A
      At the time it was accurate.
      25
      Well, the very next day so, again, February 27th,
      Susan Pearce-Bates, RPR, CCR, RSA
      Principal Court Reporter More