Alvin Braggcrimedan bonginoFeaturedlawlyingMegyn KellyMichael CohenperjurytestimonyTrump

Megyn Kelly Has Additional Damning Details About Michael Cohen’s Testimony – Twitchy

May 22, 2024
0 0
0
1
Megyn Kelly Has Additional Damning Details About Michael Cohen's Testimony – Twitchy
0
Shares

For the last few days, we have been talking about what should absolutely disastrous testimony in Trump’s NYC trial. We say it should be disastrous, because it absolutely would be disastrous in front of a fair jury, but we are not sure we have a fair jury. In the last few days, we have seen Anderson Cooper admit Cohen seemed to lie about the contents of a phone call, and Cohen admit to stealing thousands of dollars from the Trump organization. The theft is extra bad, because it apparently included falsifying documents in order to carry it out (he sent an inflated bill). So that means any document he had a hand in creating becomes suspect, just like with that ‘lying Pecker.’

But if we were on the Trump defense team, we would also focus very strongly on allegations that Cohen had lied in the current trial. As this author said the last time that we wrote about Cohen:

One way to shore up a witness with a history of lying is to say ‘sure, he lied in the past, but he has reformed his ways and, therefore, he is not lying now.’ But that only has a chance of working if he avoids any fresh lies, and [Anderson] Cooper seems to think Cohen told at least one fresh lie in this case.

Thus, Cohen could claim that even the theft is in his past. But any dishonesty in this case undermines that reform narrative. And that’s where this video, shot before the theft revelation, comes in:

Unlike Anderson Cooper, Ms. Kelly used to be a prosecutor, so listening to her talk about this sort of thing would be as different as watching a basketball game with this author, versus watching it with Michael Jordan. We like basketball, but we feel confident that Mr. Jordan almost literally sees a basketball game 100% differently than most lay people, and Ms. Kelly picks up on details most laypeople miss when it comes to legal matters. Cooper is a useful barometer for how (biased) laypersons might process this situation, but Ms. Kelly will give you a more professional perspective.

Recommended

And the first of these details is the length of the call between Cohen and Trump’s bodyguard (and allegedly Trump, too): One minute and thirty-six seconds. That really isn’t enough time to talk to the bodyguard about his fourteen-year-old tormenter (lol) and get the phone transferred to Trump (even if that happens quickly) and tell him everything about the Stormy Daniels deal, as Cohen claimed.

And of course, she hones in on how weaselly Cohen’s language becomes when he was confronted with these contradicting facts. You can see her reading off the transcript as she quotes Cohen as backtracking, saying the phone call was ‘potentially’ about more than the young bane of his existence that night. Then he soon is saying it was merely his belief at the time when he testified that this is the conversation they had: ‘I believe I was telling the truth.’

We honestly felt an involuntary sympathetic cringe.

But, interestingly, it was non-lawyer Dan Bongino who singled out another whopper, starting at about the 5:40 mark. He talks about how Cohen claimed he never met Fat Alvin Bragg, only for Trump’s attorney to play a bit from Cohen’s podcast where talked about meeting with him for hours. Indeed, this is verified by the reporting of The Federalist:

Cohen testified Thursday that he never met Bragg, but Blanche presented the jury with audio from a podcast episode in which Cohen thanked Bragg for his work against Trump.

‘Alvin Bragg, with whom I spent countless hours laying out how Trump directed those hush money payments and countless other financial crimes. He is about to get a taste of what I went through and I promise you it’s not fun. Picturing Donald Trump being led through the booking process, getting fingerprinted, having his mug shot taken, fills me with delight and sadness all at the same time.’

This Twitter/X user posted a link to their article, here:

The rest of the discussion was interesting, but for our money those two points were the most vital. Ms. Kelly showed more evidence that Cohen lied about the pivotal call, and showed how pathetic Cohen sounded when confronted with that evidence, and Mr. Bongino showed that Cohen seemed to be lying to the jury. Yes, it is possible that Cohen was actually lying in the podcast and he was telling the truth when he said he never met Fat Alvin. But let’s step back and ask ourselves, ‘is it even plausible to claim he never met Bragg?’ This is almost certainly the biggest case of Bragg’s life, so it would almost seem like negligence not to at least meet the guy and make his own assessment. While we tend to assume Bragg is not involved in every detail, we would be honestly shocked if they could prove they never even met.

On to reactions:

These reactions included a totes scientific poll:

We think the poll and its respondents reflect sarcasm more than anything.

Actually, we think he reminds us more of Woody Allen and we don’t particularly like Mr. Allen.

We’re not sure. As we previously reported, two on the jury are actually lawyers and it only takes one juror to recognize that there is plenty of reasonable doubt, here, and hang the jury. We are praying for at least that outcome.

And there always has to be that guy:

In a different discussion, Mr. DeVore wrote this gem of a post:

This author sparred a little with him yesterday. He tried his best to avoid really engaging with the facts or the law, culminating in his decision to mute us (which is funny). With regards to the Kelly/Bongino discussion, Ms. Kelly showed it was not plausible that Cohen discussed two things in that call, with two different people in such a short period of time. She also showed how weak he sounded in trying to denying that he had lied. And Mr. Bongino exposed another whopper Cohen told.

As for why Megyn Kelly phrased it as a question here’s a hint, Mr. DeVore: She wanted people to actually watch the video. If she just says he lied, a lot of people won’t bother. You usually want to give the reader/listener/viewer a little mystery to pique their curiosity.

Finally, we get this question:

No. Not in a million years. At least not for any testimony in this case. It’s infuriating, but it is also true.

But if jury is hung—or shockingly, if Trump is actually acquitted—we doubt the left will pretend Cohen isn’t just plain scum after that. Indeed, in either scenario, they will probably think Trump is actually guilty, but Cohen screwed up the prosecution.

And in the end, we think a fair jury should acquit Trump. The central question in this case is whether these payments were, in Trump’s mind, to benefit his campaign or to keep from proverbially sleeping on his couch, or any number of other reasons that are ‘not his campaign.’ And the only evidence that Trump did this for his campaign is from the mouth of Cohen. The legal standard isn’t if you have a reasonable doubt about this, but whether any person would have a reasonable doubt. And, well, we can’t imagine fair person claiming that it is unreasonable to believe Cohen is such a liar, nothing he says can be taken as true.



Source link

Related Posts

Load More Posts Loading...No More Posts.
© 2024 ariseright
© 2024 ariseright
Your text