Trump’s lawyers rested their case on Tuesday after making the following arguments: new york times It is described as “minimum protection”.
times It is likely that the wording was not intended to downplay President Trump’s defense. The article explains that the Trump campaign had only two witnesses compared to 20 for the prosecution, which means prosecutors have the burden of proving every aspect of the case. This is not at all unusual, considering that the defense does not have to present any evidence at all. The truth is that Trump’s defense was not minimal. It was terrible.
After the prosecution laid out their case, Trump’s lawyers could have relied on what they’d done on cross-examination and worked it into their closing arguments. Instead, they chose to call two witnesses: a paralegal in the office of Trump’s lead lawyer, Todd Branch, and Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor who has represented many high-profile clients, including Rudy Giuliani and former Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, and who, at one point, advised Michael Cohen.
Paralegal Danny Sitko was essentially put on the stand as a records custodian to admit some of the call records. Mr. Costello had just visited the Republican-led House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and was thrown in to attack Mr. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer and key witness for the prosecution. The paralegal worked well. But Costello was an unmitigated disaster for Trump’s defense team.
Defense adjourns despite Trump saying he’ll ‘absolutely’ testify
The idea appears to have been to build on Mr. Costello’s comments about Mr. Cohen’s testimony at Mr. Trump’s trial, made in the wake of an appearance before Congress last week:[v]Virtually everything he said about me was a lie. ”
According to Politico, Costello told CBS during a Congressional hearing that he had a brief conversation with Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche, but that the discussion was “not witness preparation.”
Costello was referring to the lack of preparation for Congressional testimony, but that could apply to trial testimony as well.
Perhaps Mr. Costello was trying to undermine Mr. Cohen’s credibility by exaggerating in the media on Tuesday about how Mr. Cohen is a weak link in the prosecution’s case because he has been convicted of tax evasion, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress. I guess he was trying to make him lose his job.
But Mr. Cohen, who is certainly carrying baggage that Mr. Trump’s legal team can and will use, has been described by the legal forum Just Security as “sometimes petulant and sometimes hurtful.” He survived three days of cross-examination by Mr. Branch. Cohen remained calm and perhaps even composed. He presented himself to the jury as someone who had committed fraud in the past, but was telling the truth about that fraud. Remarkably, Cohen never seemed to draw the ire of trial judge Juan Machan.
In contrast, Costello displayed remarkable arrogance toward Judge Marchan, yelling “Wow” at the judge’s ruling on Monday, rolling his eyes and starting a standoff with the judge when Judge Marchan reprimanded Costello. Costello may have been performing for Trump, but it was a deeply destructive performance in front of a jury that at least partially met with the judge’s disapproval.
In fact, Costello so enraged Marchan that Marchan left the courtroom to thoroughly reprimand Costello, telling him his actions were “disparaging” and threatening to remove him from the witness stand or invalidate his testimony altogether. .
Also in contrast to Cohen was Costello’s performance during cross-examination by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, who delivered a master class in dissecting Costello. MSNBC’s Katie Phan noted, “Costello’s finicky behavior toward Hoffinger only incites more disgust from the jury. He’s been impeached on display after display.”
MAGA Lawyer Dismantled by Trump’s Own Damning Emails
If Costello’s mission as a witness was to undermine Cohen’s credibility, he failed. What he has done is undermine his own credibility and perhaps introduce an atmosphere of mob-like loyalty to the jury, which Trump’s defense team said will deter Cohen from cooperating with the government. It is likely to give the jury the impression that he tried to do so. Ironically, Costello’s testimony coincided with the appearance of comedian Joe Piscovo as Trump’s court aide, thus completing the testimony. wise man atmosphere.
It is worth remembering that the defendant does not have to prove his case, but once he does, that evidence becomes useful material for the prosecution. My former colleague, prosecutor Julie Grohovsky, very effectively reminded jurors of that in closing arguments in cases where the defense had chosen to prove their case. The former training director emphasized that even though the government bears the full burden of proof throughout the case, that doesn’t mean jurors won’t consider weaknesses in the evidence presented by the defense. Simply put, just because you are presumed innocent does not mean you can submit poor quality evidence or testimony.
If a New York jury returns a guilty verdict against Trump, his legal team may regret the decision to pursue the case in the first place. Legendary defense attorney Johnnie Cochran argued that the forensic evidence in the O.J. Simpson case was contaminated, using the phrase “garbage in, garbage out.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers may well have remembered Mr. Cochran’s words when deciding whether to pursue a lawsuit featuring Robert Costello.
Read more at The Daily Beast.
Get The Daily Beast’s biggest scoops and scandals delivered to your inbox. Sign up now.
Stay informed and enjoy unlimited access to The Daily Beast’s unmatched reporting. Subscribe now.
