I think the prosecution has to prove that Trump falsified business records which is linked to trying to influence the election. If you are talking about beyond reasonable doubt it seems possible one or two jurors could see Cohen as a liar with an ax to grind. They paint the story that Trump was really busy running an election campaign and signed a bunch of documents that passed over his desk assuming they were legit. I wouldn't buy it but they don't have to sell it to me or anybody on this forum just one of the jurors. Does the verdict have to be unanimous?

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

After whatever damage the defense feels they inflicted on the prosecution case by confirming that Cohen said, in direct, that he lied about things, the defense calls lawyer Robert Costello who was to be an intermediary between Cohen and Trump. Costello proceeds directly to insulting the judge (like saying "Jeez" when the judge sustains an objection), causing the judge to first dismiss the jury and then *clearing the courtroom*.


Jury members see this kind of behavior towards the judge, and it does not go well for the defense. So instead of thinking about Cohen and his testimony, they are left with this impression of the "defense."

Can't wait to see the transcript of what was said when the courtroom was cleared (someone said that when they returned, Costello was "red as a strawberry").

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I believe that the "stealing" was in reference to the fact that Cohen paid $20,000 to a firm that was to rig some election polling, but billed Trump for $50,000. That $50,000 was part of the $430,000, IIRC.

Don't hold me to that.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

But didnt trump say that the 430,000 was part of the 35,000 retainer for 12 months, and that 430,000 wasnt a reimbursement - and was for legal services during the upcoming months? Its the timing I dont get.

I mean obviously it makes more sense that 1) he billed trump for 50g, 2) paid only 20, 3) the rest of the contract was about stormy/daniels/bonus for cohen.

Cohen def stole money. But its like if I give someone $100 to go buy illegal drugs, he only buys $50 worth, pockets the rest. But I have said all along I didnt buy any drugs. I dont think arguing that person stole $50 from me while buying illegal drugs for me is a good argument.

Yes, the verdict must be unanimous.

do you even remember when you used to believe in this:

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Definition, How to Prove, Examples, and More (thedefenders.net)


Definition
In criminal cases, the prosecution is required to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the evidence presented must be so convincing that no reasonable person could have any doubts about the defendant’s guilt.
Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt or speculation; instead, it’s a doubt based on reason that would govern or control a person in the more weighty affairs of life. If the jurors have thoroughly reviewed all the evidence and are confident in their belief of the charge, then there is no reasonable doubt.
Importance in Criminal Cases
The concept of reasonable doubt is vital to the criminal justice system as it upholds the presumption of innocence – a fundamental principle that every defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
This high burden of proof on the prosecution ensures that innocent individuals are not unjustly convicted, and it guarantees fairness in the legal process.

Avenatti is a crook, but it’s not like he was in a position of power for Obama or Biden. Rather different than Cohen, Giuliani, Eastman, Powell, Ellis, and Chesebro. When it comes to crooked lawyers, you can’t equate Trump’s team with the Obama or Biden teams. Cohen may get a little love (mostly hope) from the left because of his role as a prosecution witness. But, let’s not forget that he is in that role because he was Trump’s lawyer.

Yes and that is the hard part. Beyond a reasonable doubt he falsified those records.

I’ve barely followed this case but it doesn’t seem very open and shut that many are hoping for or think will happen.

Not really. It's more like if someone bills you $100. Then buys $50 of illegal drugs and pockets the rest. You pay the $100 bill because the invoice says pharmaceuticals. You get busted for illegal drugs and they try to say you knew what you were buying because you wrote the check for $100 (including the $50 stolen from you).

The paper documents and the signing of the checks are the alleged physical evidence Trump was involved in the conspiracy. The argument has been that Trump knew what he was signing. If that is the case, you have to accept Cohen stole $60K from him and Trump signed off on it.

So to the people earlier in this thread who said the physical evidence is clear and they don't need Cohen, explain to me again why you put a guy on Friday who lied about the important phone call linking this to Trump, and then today admits to stealing $60K, which was included in the payments Trump signed off on?

It's a bold strategy, Cotton.

Tetched... That was the word I was looking for. For this whole bizarre circus.

I haven't been following too closely. So the payment Trump owed $50K to a company called RedFinch, and Cohen paid $20K and pocketed $30K. How is the RedFinch invoice linked to Stormy? At first glance it sounded to me like a sort of separate transaction since the role of the firm was apparently to boost polling #s. Maybe worth pointing out to the jury as evidence of Cohen lying/stealing, but not necessarily as a direct part of the Trump financial fraud related to Stormy?


Do we know for sure that Cohen lied? The defense sure claimed he did, but it seemed to be based mostly on the implausibility of timing more than something direct like call records?

I'm not trying to portray Cohen as honest. His dishonesty and motives are 100% suspect. He's not a good person, like most who've operated in Trump's sphere. And I'm not one to think he's suddenly pure-as-driven snow just because now he's anti-Trump.

I don't remember anyone saying that. I do remember a few people pushing back on a statement being the only connection was Cohen.

But trump is saying that none of the payments were for a reimbursement. So all of the retainer was for future legal services.

I don’t know how they are saying there was no reimbursement because the redfinch would be a reimbursement.

So part of the payment was for a reimbursement - but not the stormy stuff?

You must have missed the part where the judge allowed the prosecution to admit a photo, which is a still from a C-SPAN video, that confirms Trump’s bodyguard was with Trump just minutes before the phone call in question took place This video backed up Cohen's claim that Trump and Shiller were together and that Cohen could have easily spoken to both of them that evening about the hush money deal.

Isn't the fact that Cohen admitted to overbilling Trump for a service that was designed to manipulate online polls a bit of a push? Yes, it confirms, yet again, that Cohen is liar, but it also confirms that Trump was willing to go to extreme, and expensive, efforts to manipulate public opinion for the election.