That Time Trump's Lawyer Melted Down While Cross Examining Michael Cohen

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:02 Clip: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

0:00:18 Clip: What's my crime? I got bold? And a little negligent? Nope!

0:00:26 Clip: Bailiffs are coming to take away my will to live. Well, one count of being a bear, and one count of being an accessory to being a bare. This is a free court!

0:00:44 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments. This is an Audible, as keen listeners may already realize from the intro not being T3BE. Okay, it an audible, I think you're really going to like it though. So So the end of the month was already hard enough, but then I wanted to make sure I finally got the lot awful debates, the weird out debate all finished. And to be honest, it was very long and it was the kind of thing that, you know, I'm a little like self -conscious about because it's a thing I'm really excited about. It's music law and it's sort of talking philosophically about that and about a lot of the cases involved, the key cases in sampling, in parody, and some other miscellaneous and really interesting music law cases. And of course, a little bit of debate about Weird Al too. Anyway, it's the kind of thing where I want to make sure it was great at it, it was really tightly done and it was taking some extra time. So rather than delay it any further, I set that as the priority and I'm doing something different instead of T3BE. So the thing though. I think everyone's going to be happy. You're at that second tier and above, you're getting Lot Awful Debates Weird Al. It's already partly out. Enjoy. Please enjoy. Hope you like it. Even a tenth as much as Matt and I enjoyed having the conversation. I think you'll learn a lot. You'll throw a lot of tomatoes at me. It'll be fun. Now, for everyone else, you're getting one of the best Gavel Gavel episodes on the Trump trial there was. I realized that those of you who aren't over there on the Gavel Gavel Patreon have not heard Eli Bosnick as Michael Cohen. I think this is a great opportunity to remedy that. So I'm going to give you, after I stop talking here, best probably Michael Cohen day as well, because do you remember when Todd Blanche took over on cross-examination? We talked about it on this show. Blanche took over and had a real bad time and made it all about himself. Pepperidge Farm remembers. And though doesn't come until later in this episode, that alone is just worth the price of admission. So I thought that's a great way to hopefully make everyone happy. Should be swimming in content regardless of whether you're patron, non -patron, everybody. So, once again, just to recap, on patreon.com/law at that second tier and above can go listen to a whole lot of debates, Weird Al edition, and that's also a very fun venture into music law and our musical opinions and stuff and also right after this break, you will hear Gavel Gavel, which was May 14th of the Trump trial, which finished off Michael Cohen's direct testimony, played of course, and then went on to the greatest, and by greatest, I mean probably the worst, cross -examination in court history. It was so good. So I hope that pleases everyone and I will pause that T3BE and we'll get back to it next week. Right. Thanks so much for listening. You enjoy.

0:03:36 Thomas: And welcome to Gavel, Gavel. I'm Thomas. That is Buzz. Real-life attorneys, Matt and Liz. How you doing?

0:03:44 Matt: I was waiting for Liz to go first. Great!

0:03:47 Thomas: I would like you to answer in perfect synchronicity.

0:03:51 Matt: It's May 14th. It's a beautiful day outside. Beautiful spring day.

0:03:56 Liz: Well, exactly. It's six days before my birthday, May and yeah, beautiful spring day.

0:04:01 Thomas: Boy, we sure got these transcripts quickly. Excited for this one. We got some more Bosnick as Michael Cohen. Now we're finishing up Direct, which is, you know, it is kind of more of what we've had. And then then we get to cross, which is, ah, it's so, it's so much fun. I'm so excited that we're finally there.

0:04:24 Matt: One of the most legendary openings in the history of cross -examination, as we will see.

0:04:27 Thomas: It's so it's, so dumb. I thought we already did this. Cause like, I think I had the experience of when we were like recording the voiceover, I was like, this is the dumbest thing in the world. And, uh, I got to experience it again, you know, the second time. So I'm very excited.

0:04:42 Matt: We we lightly touched on it in OA, but we're going to have some fun with it today.

0:04:45 Thomas: That's right. We did. Okay. That's what I'm thinking of. We DID kind of talk about it. I gotcha.

0:04:50 Matt: Not talk about it the day it happened. It was too good. But we'll get there. We should do some housekeeping very quickly on what is going on. Before the direct. Very quickly, the prosecution tells the court they're not going to be calling any more representatives from Trump's publisher. They've decided they've made their point without the books. And so Cohen is going to be the final prosecution witness, which is appropriate because he's really the superstar blockbuster witness. There's a great quote here from Steinglass where he says, I think it's highly likely that we'll get to the defense case, such as it is, on Thursday. Used Are to that kind of shade from prosecutors on your case? That seems a little mean.

0:05:23 Liz: It is uh no I'm not um that

0:05:29 Thomas: But also, are you defending Donald Trump with the worst defense anyone's ever seen? So I feel like it's warranted, you know?

0:05:39 Matt: I think it's a fair statement.

0:05:41 Liz: That's certainly some showboating by uh the prosecutor but um so

0:05:45 Matt: Also an argument about the prosecution wants the defense to disclose if they're going to be calling impeachment witnesses because they have the right to do that, as Liz would better than I, but they cite 245 .24b, the disclosure of me, have any anyone who might impeach a prosecution witness. I don't think there's anything too special about that. But the thing about this is Blanche says they're not going to have a rebuttal witness. And I don't want to spoil anything, but they are going to rebut a witness. That will happen a little later.

0:06:08 Thomas: What's a rebuttal witness exactly?

0:06:11 Liz: Right, so there are a couple different types of witnesses. Rebuttal witness would be someone who is, you know, an impeachment witness, someone who's being brought to out something, a contradiction to something that one of the witnesses testified to. So So could be, for example, someone say testified that Matt stole this car, and then that same person had told someone that actually Matt didn't steal the car, So that would be a rebuttal witness. Say you wanted to have someone who just contradicted. So that's the idea of it. And the reason why you don't need to tell the prosecution about these witnesses up front is that there's this presumption that their witnesses are going to tell the truth. So, um, you only have to tell them if, you know, you, they testify and then you have a witness that's going to say something contradictory to what they testified to. Um, the way it comes up a lot of times in my cases actually is we'll oftentimes have investigators go and talk to, uh, witnesses complaining, you Know, um. And then the witnesses testify to something different than what they told our investigator at trial. File, and then we call the investigator to testify to what the witness told the investigator.

0:07:16 Thomas: Yeah. So it's like, you don't have to tell because you might not necessarily know if you even need them until like the testimony right okay

0:07:23 Liz: Exactly. That's the exact logic with that, right? You're So supposed to tell them immediately after their witness testifies, because at that point you have the information, at least under New York State law. So, you unfair for the prosecutor here to be like, hey, we haven't heard anything about, you now, any rebuttal witnesses, so we're presuming they don't have any.

0:07:38 Matt: Little early,

0:07:37 Thomas: I stupidly didn't know there was different kinds I thought that was just like informally you're calling oh it's like a character witness I don't know it was like you actually it actually matters like what kind of witness they're yeah

0:07:51 Liz: It does because otherwise, at least under New York law, I have to tell the prosecutor about any witnesses that I plan to call, except for this category of impeachment witnesses, rebuttal witnesses. Because again, the idea is I won't necessarily know until after their witness testifies and I say, ah, I Have a witness that's going to say something different. So, you

0:08:11 Thomas: Now are you allowed to designate a surprise witness each more surprising than the last a series of surprise witnesses

0:08:18 Liz: You the designation does make them not so much of a surprise. This is a little bit of a hanky area, though, of law in the sense that, you're able to tell the prosecutor right after you've seen this witness testify that you've got an impeachment witness that you want to call, but you also have a constitutional right to put on on a defense. So if, for example, in course of the trial, you become aware of a witness that you want to call as the defense that you haven't previously put the prosecutor on notice on, you should be able to try to make those arguments to get that witness on. That's always kind of a little bit of a tension between laws that require the defense to make a disclosure. Oh, I have to tell the prosecutor about all my witnesses except for impeachment witnesses. At least 30 days before trial. But, you know, something if I, comes up, I I should be prevented from being being able to put on a defense.

0:08:24 Matt: Would have run it.

0:09:11 Thomas: The judge will probably like let it slide kind of thing sometimes.

0:09:14 Liz: As long as I have a good reason. I

0:09:16 Matt: There actually a difference between an impeachment and rebuttal witness? I feel like this is a stupid question that I should know, but

0:09:21 Thomas: Here, I can cover for you, Matt, and ask it. Hey, idiot here. Is there a difference between a rebuttal and an impeachment witness?

0:09:24 Matt: Thank you, Thomas.

0:09:31 Liz: We typically use the term impeachment witness. I don't really use the term rebuttal witness, but

0:09:36 Thomas: You rebut without impeaching? You're like, I rebut what they're saying, but they're a fine moral upstanding character. Yeah. I just want to say.

0:09:42 Matt: They're great. Everything they said was true.

0:09:44 Liz: Would use them interchangeably. The statute and most of the case law more formally would use the the term impeachment witness, but I think you can, there's no formal difference is what I'm trying to get at.

0:09:52 Matt: I think we stick more with rebuttals, but I noticed that because Blanche says says rebuttal witness on the record, but, uh, oh

0:09:58 Liz: So I think he's saying rebuttal witness because he's coming from federal court. If he was a real state court practitioner, like he, because note that Stein glass, who is a real estate court practitioner. He uses the term impeachment witness.

0:10:02 Matt: You're right. Yep.

0:10:09 Liz: So Blanche is just doing the saying reButtal because I think it's, it's more of a federal court terminology. And it's just, again, if you're more in state court, you'd be using impeachment accomplishment as

0:10:09 Thomas: That's so funny. I just love how many things there are like you're using the wrong salad fork or something there's a lot of things where the Liz's of the courtroom are like coming from out of town huh you're not from around here are you with your rebuttal witness

0:10:23 Matt: A little tells. Yeah. Yeah,

0:10:32 Liz: Really it I think I do think their team one of the things I think their theme is was really deficient on was not having anyone that knew how to do new york state stuff um have oh god um you know I was about to agree because I'm jet lagged but no um you now there I mean we moved this probably a topic for like another episode. But one of the things that was really shocking to me was they filed all these motions to try to get sanctions and stuff like that. But there a really good motion they could have had to dismiss the case based on some prosecutorial delay in

0:10:34 Thomas: That's funny should have hired Liz oh wow

0:11:08 Liz: Getting them a lot of the discovery. And they never filed it. And I would have thought, yeah, I have no idea why they didn't do it. Of the thing that's interesting about New York law is that we had this big reform a a couple of years ago. But what it does is it tied, we have statutory speedy trial. So it's, you know, as a matter of statute, the prosecution has a certain number of days to bring a case to trial. And there's lots of exclusions to that, you know. If the defense requests certain types of adjournments, certain types of motion practice. But one of the ways that I get a lot of my cases dismissed is if the prosecution exceeds its speedy trail time. And it's tied to also the speed at which they get you discovery. So in this case, the prosecution, you know, got them all of these documents, um, that had been in actually the hands of the fed. So it was like propped by was, it had been with SDNY actually, but got them really, really late in the case. And I would have filed a motion to dismiss on that basis because the purpose of this, this was to tie discovery, getting to criminal discovery to attorneys as soon as possible to speedy trial in order to incentivize prosecutors to just get you the material that you want to make sure that you had any Brady and he knew your defenses and they never filed it. And it was just really, and instead they filed a motion for sanctions, which was just stupid to me because

0:12:21 Liz: The just kind of general sanctions, like, oh, they won't be allowed to use some evidence. The greatest sanction of all is dismissal, but it's just a different statutory provision. So I don't know, just here and there are a few things like, yeah, the fact that Blanche uses the term rebuttal, that's not really the term that we use. We use impeachment.

0:12:36 Liz: And that's the term the statute uses yeah

0:12:35 Thomas: It's not PC anymore anymore the woke left took away our rebuttals

0:12:41 Matt: That's fine.

0:12:41 Liz: Exactly you know wrong solid fork but gotta you gotta eat solid with the right fork oh

0:12:47 Thomas: Can't

0:12:45 Matt: At point in the next two days, they're going to realize they do need a rebuttable witness. So we'll get there and the rebuttable witness is going to be very entertaining. Uh but I don't want to spoil anything yet yeah it's gonna be a good one but of course there's no one more entertaining than michael cohen so let's get into it I

0:12:55 Thomas: Wait yeah matt you're not gonna make us listen to his podcast again are you because I will I will leave I can't that 15 seconds was the worst 15 seconds of my life

0:13:05 Matt: Actually I almost did and then I realized the reaction you would have we'll get to that part but I almost pulled some clips yeah I'm not gonna make y 'all do it I

0:13:14 Liz: My god I'm dead I'm

0:13:16 Thomas: Well liz and I can take off our headphones and I I can push play, you know, like, yeah, all

0:13:20 Matt: Could just enjoy him alone with the audience all right so get back to direct uh susan hoffinger is going to be uh doing the direct exam and we're going to start off, skipping over a few things, but nothing important, with Michael Cohen's visit to the White House. Now, this is going to be very significant in light of recent events in the Supreme Court. We'll talk about it afterward, but let's see how it goes when Michael Cohen goes to the White House, so

0:13:42 Thomas: Is the iconic Lydia and Eli Bosnick duo here,

0:13:46 Clip: February 8th of 2017, did you visit the White House on that day? I did. And why, while you were visiting the White House, did you have a private conversation with then-President Trump? I did First, where did the conversation take place? In the Oval Office. Did you discuss in the OVAL Office the reimbursement payments that were going to be made to you? Yes, ma 'am. Can you tell the jury a bit about that conversation? Conversation. So I was sitting with President Trump and he asked me if I was okay. He asked me if I needed money and I said, no, all good. He said, because I can get a check. And I said no, I said I'm okay. He said, um, all right, just make sure you deal with Alan. Did he say anything about anything that would be forthcoming? Excuse me? Did he Say anything about what would be forthcoming to you? Yes, it would be a check for January and February. And so, at that point in time, you had not yet been reimbursed for the payments that you made to Stormy Daniels? No, ma 'am. And did you take any photos commemorating your visit to the White House? I did. Why did you do that? Visiting the White house. Can we put up people's 253 in evidence, please? Do you recognize that photo, Mr. Cohen? I do. And can you tell the jurors when you took that photo and where you were? On the same day, and that's in the briefing room right outside the Oval Office. And did you take that photo before you met with President Trump or after you met with him? No, ma 'am, after. Now, did you also put a page in your electronic calendar indicating that you had a meeting with the President of the United States on that day? I did. And do you always put meetings and appointments in your electronic calendar? No ma' am. Why did you put one in that day. So if to To commemorate seeing President Trump at the White House.

0:15:36 Matt: President Trump is in the White house. You might notice in this testimony where February 8th is just a couple of weeks into his administration, and this is one of of the only parts of this entire trial that touches on the post -election, post -swearing -in. And it's, of course, significant now because the defense has filed a motion for a new trial based on immunity, based on the fact that there's official acts possibly involved. Now, I don't know what official act has just been described in this testimony. They're talking about paying off hush money in the White House. Dirtier about this whole thing than anything Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office, I feel like. It's just, I don' t know, just just negotiating your hush money payments and talking about them in there. Yeah. As far as I can tell, and I guess maybe we'll pick up some more as we go, but I think this and Hope Hicks' testimony is really the only reference to things that actively happened while Trump was president. Have

0:16:28 Thomas: Well I guess, you know, the, the witness intimidation, I don't know if, is that, it's kind of this, I guess, his, okay, yeah I don'T know if that you're counting that, sorry,

0:16:34 Matt: Coming too. True. That's true. But in terms of actual conversations with Trump and things that people are repeating that he's actually said and did. But yeah, no, there's definitely going to be tweets and such afterward. Also now going to move on to talk about some of the actual business records that are in question. And these are going to be the invoices is that Cohen is going to send to Weisselberg. And again, these are business records that are being generated after January and February of 2017, when Trump is president. And they are going into the Trump organization and being entered in as official business records and then generating checks that are paying him. So this is just some housekeeping here on this to make sure that we establish that he sent these invoices and that this key of testimony piece is all validated.

0:17:13 Clip: And thereafter, did you send monthly invoices essentially similar to this invoice? Yes, I copied and pasted. And was this invoice consistent with the directions that you had been given by Allen Weisselberg? Yes, ma 'am. Now, the invoice here says, for services rendered. The date here is, what is the date on this invoice ? February 14th of 2017. And does the invoice say that it's for not only services rendered in the month of January, but also services rendered for the month of February of 2017? Yes, ma 'am. And in truth, was this invoice for any services that you had rendered for those two months, as indicated, pursuant to a retainer agreement? Objection. Overruled. No, ma'm. And the description of pursuance to a a retainer agreement. Was that a truthful statement? No, ma 'am. And for services rendered, was that a fruitful statement? Though, ma'm. What was the true purpose of this invoice and the subsequent invoices that you sent? The reimbursement to me of the hush money fee along with the Redfinch and the bonus. Was this invoice a false record? Yes, ma'M. And did you Did you continue to submit similar false invoices through the month, monthly, through the month of December of 2017, so that you would receive those checks? Yes, ma 'am. And did each of those monthly invoices that you submitted make the same false representation that it was rendered? It was for services rendered for the month in question, pursuant to a retainer agreement. Yes, madam. Ma 'am.

0:18:49 Matt: There you go. That's a major part of the case. Cohen confirming that there's no agreement, that there were no legal services, that everything about these invoices is fake. So pretty straightforward.

0:18:57 Thomas: For like the 10th time case closed, you know, it's yeah. Overdetermined.

0:19:02 Liz: Let

0:19:02 Matt: But, know, prosecution laying the foundation, doing the job. You Know, we've already had multiple witnesses say he never did any legal work and there was no agreement. But just to hear it from him, now we're on the record. We got it. Going to hear now what came back.

0:19:11 Thomas: We got him. Sorry.

0:19:13 Matt: That's right. Pretty much.

0:19:13 Thomas: Running through all the sound clips I played through the years. Yeah.

0:19:18 Matt: From those invoices, which, again, just to make the case and make sure that we've established on the record that he was actually paid.

0:19:23 Thomas: Was that objection anything? Was it just like leading or something? I

0:19:26 Matt: I don't know what that was about.

0:19:28 Liz: Go back to it yeah no I'm it's just it's really leading rule in truth was this invoice for any services that you had rendered for those two months as indicated pursuant to the retainer agreement mean first off also just like even putting the in truth, there is a little like, I mean, you're already kind of, you know, little bit of opinion there. And then, um, order to make it a non -leading question, you would want to say something a bit more open -ended, you know, what was the purpose of, uh this invoice, um was it for any services that you had rendered in the last two months? It's don't even think it's a particularly well well asked question because I even find to it confusing read. Yeah, it's highly leading.

0:20:03 Thomas: Did the judge not care

0:20:05 Liz: Guess I just didn't care.

0:20:08 Thomas: Okay through

0:20:08 Matt: Coming out anyway, so.

0:20:10 Liz: They'll let you. I mean here's the thing like leading questions is a little as examination. It's a little discretionary. And sometimes like a judge will let you lead a little bit just so you can kind of get move along if that makes sense. Actually really think I think you should have sustained it. I think it's really leading. Maybe he also, like, was confused because it's such a long, like almost semi -compound question.

0:20:20 Thomas: The day yeah yeah

0:20:30 Liz: He's like, whatever. It's not the basis of a mistrial. Let's put it that way.

0:20:36 Matt: All let's just close the loop on the invoicing here, pretty

0:20:38 Clip: In response to those 11 false invoices, similar to this one that you sent, did you receive seven checks in the year 2017 totaling $420 ,000? I'm sorry, how many checks? 11. A total of 11 checks in year 2017, totaling four hundred and twenty thousand dollars. Yes, ma' am. And can we now put up people's exhibit four in evidence? Can you tell the jury what this is referring to to Exhibit 4? This is a check that was sent to me for $70,000, which was for the month of January of 2017, and for the months of February 2017, along with the stub that came with it. So when you received this check, it had a stub attached to it? One of the stubs. And this was in response to the invoice that you sent that we just looked at, People's 37A? Yes, ma 'am. And I want to direct your attention to the check stub. If you could blow up one of the check stubs. It says retainer for January 1st, 2017 through January 30th, 2017 and retainer for February 1st 2017 through February 28th, 2017. Again, was there a retainer? Was this a retainor for those months? No ma 'am. And was the check, were the descriptions here on this check stub false? Yes. And again, there was no retainer agreement. Is that right? That's correct.

0:22:02 Thomas: For the record case closed yes case

0:22:04 Liz: Yeah. Which, by the way, also, that last one just, I mean, and again, there was no retainer agreement. Is that right? I mean that's really leaning, you know. A That's defense style question. That's basically yes or no there was. I mean they're really hammering this. They're not getting objected to, I guess, on the most part. And case is closed.

0:22:06 Matt: Much. So now we're going to learn more about the scope of Michael Cohen's actual legal services. This is kind of a long one, but I thought this was worth getting into. We might interrupt it as we go. Also going to hear the prosecution starting to sort of get ahead of some of his very clear deficiencies as a witness, just to kind of lay this down ahead of the defense cross. Yeah, let's check this out.

0:22:43 Clip: Now, after the last check was sent to you in December of 2017, I think you mentioned you never received any other checks from Mr. Trump or from his trust. Is that correct? That is correct. Or from the Trump Organization? Also correct. I want to talk to you a little bit about the work that you did in 2017. Any work that your did with respect to your role as personal attorney and personal counsel to President Trump. Did you do in the year 2017 any work for Mr. Trump or for his wife, Melania Trump? Minimal. And can you just give us some examples of the minimal work that you did in 2017 for them? There was a matter that dealt with an individual by the name of Summer Zervos. I was working with Mark Kasowitz on that. And so I had spoken with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office and provided him some documents that Mr. Kasowitz had given to me to pass along. As far as Melania, I think it had to do with some trademarks or maybe even a Madame Tussauds agreement. So let's break both of those down. In terms of the work that you did for Mrs. Trump related to Madame Tussauds or the trademark, what was the, can you characterize the extent of that work for Mrs Trump? I reviewed an agreement that Madame Tussauds sent to her that was to create her likeness and image for their museum. Was it a substantial amount of time that you spent on that? No, ma 'am. And did you send a bill

0:24:06 Clip: Or an invoice to Mr. Trump or to the Trump organization for that work? No ma' am. Why not? Well, one, I didn't expect to be paid on it, but it wasn't enough work to have me send an invoice. And

0:24:06 Matt: I love that. Just real quick, he's reading a contract to make a figure of Melania Trump. He did not bill for that. Very generous of him. I know how long those contracts are. I think I'll oversee one, but I assume that's not that long. And then what's going to be coming next, I wanted to mention just for context, something that honestly, I got to tell you, I actually didn't catch this at all. It's very hard to keep track of all of the different allegations against Donald J. Trump. You guys remember Summer Zervos?

0:24:44 Thomas: I remember the name and I I feel like we had some sort of oa episode on it like right when I heard that it's summer zervos but I can't I can't remember yeah

0:24:52 Matt: She was on The Apprentice. She was a contestant, and she accused him of sexual assault, which I'm sure almost certainly did. And she discontinued the case. I don't think it was known why, but she dropped it. And I'm wondering if that had something to do with Michael Cohen, who's pretty good at getting people to not do things. Who knows? I just wanted to make sure we had context since they're going to be talking talking about Zervos here.

0:25:10 Liz: Totally forgotten about her. Um other thing I found funny was like I'm like I like must not hold your attorney in particularly high regard if the only sort of contract you let him negotiate is is matter in tussauds I

0:25:21 Matt: It's the wax museum. Yeah, so true.

0:25:23 Thomas: It's high stakes work right there

0:25:25 Matt: Yeah. This is what he gets 35 ,000 a month for or whatever those checks were for. Yeah let's see let's hear more. That's

0:25:31 Clip: And you mentioned Summer Zervos. Who was handling that matter substantially for Mr. Trump? Mark Kasowitz. So that was an outside attorney, not not yourself? Correct. How would you characterize the amount of work that you did generally on that matter, if any? Very minimal. Did you ever bill Mr. Trump or the Trump organization for that minimal work that he said that you said? No, ma 'am. Why not? Again, it wasn't any substantial work. Mr. Kasowitz was actually doing the work on that. Plus, I didn't expect to be paid. Now, from time to time did, withdrawn. From time to time, did you receive some emails from Alan Garten, who was the general counsel of the Trump organization, about particular matters here and there that he might want you to look into? Yes. And did you consider that work that he sent you legal work? No. And regardless of what type of work it was, in terms of things that he spent you, what was the extent of any work that you did on those matters? Also minimal. And did you send a bill or an invoice either to Mr. Trump or to the Trump Organization for that work? No, ma 'am. And why not? Because the same reasons as stated. I didn't expect to be paid, and it was very minimal work. If you had to characterize or estimate the number of hours that you spent in the year 2017 doing any sort of work, legal or these quasi -legal matters, what would be the total number of horas that you would estimate? Me? Less than 10. Now,

0:27:03 Matt: Incredible.

0:27:03 Clip: Did you bill for any of those matters?

0:27:04 Matt: What's everybody saying?

0:27:05 Clip: No, ma 'am. Was the $420 ,000 that you received from Mr. Trump and from the Revocable Trust, did that have anything to do with the minimal amount of work that you did for Mr. Donald Trump in 2017? No ma' am. Now did you continue for a period of months in 2018? Did you continue to hold the title of personal attorney or personal counsel to President Trump? I did. And did you do any legal work for Mr. Trump in 2018? Yes. Can you describe generally for the jury the type of work that you did in 2018 as a result of the Stormy Daniels matter and her electing to go public? Mr. Trump wanted an action to be filed in an arbitration action to be filed against her for the breach of the nondisclosure agreement. And so I was contacted by Eric Trump as well as I spoke to Mr. Trump regarding on how to go forward with this arbitration proceeding. Were you directed to work with outside counsel on that issue? Yes. Who was that? That would be Larry Rosen. And did you work on that matter with Larry Rosen in the year 2018? Yes. Comparatively, did you do more work in 2018, more legal work in 2019, for Mr. Trump, or more in 2017? It would be more in 2018. Did you get paid anything in 2018 from Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization? No, ma 'am. And did you bill for any of the work that you did for Mr .Trump in 2018? No ma' am. Now I wanted to go back to something that you said that you testified about yesterday and that was monetizing the title of personal attorney or personal counsel to the president. In 2017 and 2018 did that title assist you in getting other their clients? Yes, ma 'am. And was that your plan all along for seeking that title? And that was to be able to attract clients based on your role? Yes. In 2017 and 2018, approximately how many clients did you have doing work for them? Five. And

0:29:05 Clip: What kind

0:29:06 Matt: All right I'm sorry I have to stop there for a second. That's the dream to have five clients. Can you even imagine? It's incredible.

0:29:12 Thomas: Liz signed five clients today

0:29:15 Matt: That's That's right.

0:29:16 Liz: Mean that's correct um um I do want to just note going back a little up earlier just for uh some some context. They mentioned a couple of times his attorney Kasowitz. And Kasowitz was in the news quite a bit back when he was representing Trump on a bunch of things. But he is kind of an interesting lawyer. He's a legitimate, very legitimate lawyer who I guess helped out the servos and a few other matters that they're referencing. But I lawyer for all just like the guys club or something like that.

0:29:45 Liz: One of the main ways that he started already his own law firm that did reasonably well. But one of the main ways they made their money was just by successfully defending tobacco companies and lawsuits. And they would go, they'd take a lot of these cases to trial, you know, these liability cases for people who had died from smoking cigarettes and they had a lot of success with them. And obviously he also got in with Donald Trump. So just wanted to note that.

0:30:07 Thomas: I remember his name from the Kavanaugh hearings confirmation hearing I remember him being asked about unless it's a different I remember being asked about something there. I don't totally remember if it mattered or what it was, but yeah.

0:30:19 Liz: It's almost certainly the same one.

0:30:23 Matt: Five might be overstating it though, the number of clients we might find later. But always joked kind of about having a Cameron Platinum where you can just have my undivided attention, 24 -hour access for like, I don't know, a $500 ,000 retainer or something absurd, so I can just have five clients someday. But I can't even imagine having $500k, but just saying.

0:30:46 Thomas: This episode is brought to you by OneSkin. If you want to hit the undo button on UV aging, give OneSkin a try. Your secret weapon against summer's toll on your skin. I'm glad to have it. I did some yard work this summer in the extreme heat. And I like five seconds later I was sunburned it was it fast it's so hot around here and here's Another Thing I'm getting to The Age Where Aging Is Happening and is natural Sure, obviously, I also wouldn't mind having kind of the best skin I can have for my age. That's Why I'm Giving One Skin a Try. They're all powered by this peptide, a proprietary peptide in fact, which is scientifically proven to reduce dysfunctional, called cells, central source of skin aging. We're transitioning from summer mode to fall, objectively the best season, your skin undergoes its own transformation with OneSkin. What they're all about. Head to OneSkin.co and see how their products can become your skin's new savior. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 15% off OneSkin with our code OPENING at OneSkin.co. is the World's First Skin Longevity Company. Addresses skin health at the molecular level, targeting aging so skin behaves, feels, and appears younger. Time to get started with your new face, eye, and body routine at a discounted rate today. 15% off with code OPENING at oneskin.co. That's 15% off with the code OPENING. You purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support tell them we sent you. Only have one body, one skin, and only you can choose to make it better. Age healthy with OneSkin.

0:32:27 Matt: Right. Well, let's hear some more about this alleged minimal legal work.

0:32:31 Clip: What kind of work generally did you do for those clients? Consulting, advisory. Was there any legal work involved in any of those clients during the year 2018? No, ma 'am. Now, over the course of 2017 and 2018, approximately how much money in total did you earn from those clients that you worked for? Approximately $4 million. Did you also, as a result, have an agreement with a law firm here in New York named Squire Patent Boggs? I did. Can you explain a little bit about that? Well, I was contacted by one of the managing partners of the firm, and they were interested in having me on their letterhead because of the title personal attorney to the president, as well as being able to levy my contacts to help them generate business. And I created a working relationship with them and of counsel relationship with them. And approximately how much did Squire Pat and Boggs pay you? It was bifurcated, the agreement. It was half a million dollars. And the first half a million dollars of income that was generated would come to me. Everything thereafter until they received their half a million dollars back would go to them. And did you also have an office there at Squire Patton Boggs? Two offices. I had one here in Manhattan and one in Washington, D.C. Now, approximately how long did you hold the title of personal counsel or personal attorney to the president? Approximately 15 months. And during the time when you were personal counsel to the President, did you continue to try to protect him? Yes, ma 'am. And during that time that you served as personal counsel for the President? Did you continue to lie for him? Yes. Why did you do that? Out of loyalty and in order to protect him. And at the time he was president, is that right? Yes, ma 'am. And had he already announced that he was going to be running again for president in 2020? He had stated so. Now I want to direct your attention to the fall of 20, actually the spring and fall 2017. During the time when you were still personal counsel to President Trump around that time, did the House and Senate Intelligence Committees request that you provide them with information and appear before them and testify in connection with the Russia investigation? They did. And were you subpoenaed to provide testimony? Yes. Describe just briefly what you understood those inquiries to be about. It was about the Trump Tower Moscow deal and Russia connections to the campaign. Pain. What, if any, pressure did you feel at the time that you were under in connection with that? A tremendous amount of pressure. It was the first time I had ever been subpoenaed by Congress to come in to testify. Did you have an attorney representing you at the time in connection to your testimony? I did. And who was paying for that attorney? The Trump Organization. Was that important to you at that time that the Trump Organization was paying for your attorney? Very much so, yeah. Was your attorney also part of something called a joint defense agreement? Yes, ma 'am. Can you explain a little bit to the jury what that is? So the joint defense agreement is when there is several different lawyers representing, obviously, different people, and they are all working together for a common goal. At the time, what, if anything, did you feel about wanting the power of the president to protect you in this matter? I felt I needed it. It was extremely important to me. Did you make false statements to Congress in 2017 in connection with the written statement that you submitted and your testimony? I did. Generally, what did those false statements relate to? They dealt with the Trump Tower Moscow real estate project, specifically the number of times that I claimed to have spoken to Mr. Trump about the project, as well as the time period for those conversations. Conversations what essentially did you communicate to congress in terms of the time period I told them that it was a truncated time period and that I had only spoken to mr trump about this project three times and in truth how many times had you 10 times and did you also communicate to them that it wasn't that those communications stopped at an earlier date than they actually did yes Yes. Why did you make those false statements to Congress? Because I was staying on Mr. Trump's message that there was no Russia, Russia, Russian. And again, in coordination with the joint defense team, that's what was preferred. Now, let me direct your attention to the early months of 2018. Did you continue to lie about Mr. Donald Trump? Did you lie about Trump's involvement in the Stormy Daniels payoff? Yes. And did you continue to pressure other people, for example, like Keith Davidson, to lie Why about the payoffs to Karen McDougal and to Stormy Daniels? Yes. Why did you do that? In order to protect Mr. Trump.

0:32:53 Matt: From five people. Doing it wrong. There you go. Head on, we're addressing one of the biggest problems with Michael Cohen, at least his first set of criminal charges. We're establishing that lying to protect Trump at the time. I think this is a pretty clear, straightforward way of just getting this out in of just a witness you know is going to have trouble on cross.

0:37:43 Thomas: Matt, would you say case closed perhaps? So many different ways.

0:37:50 Liz: I think that's right. I think it's pretty straightforward the way that they did it.

0:37:54 Thomas: Liz, have you ever been paid $4 million for, was it? Five clients for like 10 hours?

0:37:58 Matt: Five people.

0:37:58 Liz: To just go back to that. That, I mean I don't think is, you know, I just, you You know, the Supreme Court has so whittled away what can constitute public corruption. And there's an example of something that will never be prosecuted as public corruption, but yeah, I mean, he got paid $4 million to do no work because of his connections. It was sort of amazing. Yeah,

0:38:21 Thomas: And he said it's like, oh, you know, consulting and what you didn't have to like do any anything. You didn't Have to research. You don't have To like write any legal documents. Just like, ah, give my opinion.

0:38:32 Liz: As well as being able to levy my contacts to help them generate business. Like, are you kidding me? Those are government contacts.

0:38:35 Matt: Right, very direct. That's what I'm doing. Yeah, the president is one of my contacts, yeah. The fact that Squire Patton Boggs, which if you know anything about, they're a huge evil lobbying firm, one of the biggest ones. Fact The that they contacted him to say, hey, we'd love to have your name on our letterhead because we want to show off that we've got a guy. I mean, it says something. That had to be pressured into dropping the Saudi government. Not just the Saudi government, but the wing of the Saudi Government that killed Jamal Khashoggi after the murder. There had to a pressure campaign to get them to drop them.

0:38:58 Liz: Got a guy. Oh

0:39:06 Thomas: Fuck you guys. Jeez.

0:39:09 Matt: Yeah.

0:39:09 Liz: God yeah they're really bad

0:39:11 Matt: These are the kinds of people that love to have Michael Cohen prominently featured, and their connection to Trump prominently featured. But they're a lobbying firm, so I guess it makes sense.

0:39:19 Thomas: So Liz, are you considering joining the bad guys now?

0:39:23 Liz: Mean well you know like one year of no work and four million dollars I mean yeah

0:39:29 Thomas: Yeah I how bad are the bad guys real you know like when you think about it

0:39:34 Liz: They're not trying to you know get rid of everything that we value and ruin our environment and make

0:39:38 Thomas: Yeah well someone has to do it you know if I don't do it it would just be michael cohen so there's somebody like that so you know there

0:39:45 Matt: Representing the interests of the Saudi and Russian governments. I mean, it's fine. So now we're going to hear some more about the ways that Michael Cohen participated in cover -ups, including ways that he pressured Keith Davidson and Stormy Daniels. I'd just like to hear more about how the sausage is made in the Michael Cohen factory.

0:40:01 Thomas: Gross

0:40:02 Liz: That was so gross like we all just got grossed out I

0:40:04 Matt: Sorry.

0:40:06 Clip: Now, during this time period, did you discuss with President Trump the statements that you were going to be releasing publicly in early 2018, meaning statements that he did not know or was not involved in the Stormy Daniels payoff? Yes. In substance, what did you tell him about the statements that you are going to releasing or issuing about the Stormi Daniels matter? That I had paid the money on his behalf, without his knowledge, because just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't hurt you. And that I did it. And you did it without his knowledged, did you say? Yes, ma'am. What generally did he, how generally did you do it? How did he respond to you letting him know that? Well, that's good. Good. Now, in January of 2018, were you in contact with Keith Davidson about this article that was going to be coming out in the Wall Street Journal? Yes. What did you discuss with him? How this statement, how the story had gotten out. I was angered and I was concerned. And what did you ask him to do in response? Obtain a denial from Ms. Daniels.

0:41:08 Matt: Wanted to point out, I do not actually write out the things word for words that I'm going to say before I introduced these and as the words how the sausage is made in the michael cohen factory came out of my mouth I realized maybe that's not the best way to introduce this club sorry

0:41:18 Thomas: Would like to issue an apology go ahead Matt. He has a prepared statement.

0:41:21 Liz: I'm still like slightly grossed but um yeah yeah sorry everyone case

0:41:27 Matt: That's my fault so

0:41:29 Thomas: Thank you. You were canceled during that time. And now I think maybe you can repair the damage and be uncanceled.

0:41:37 Matt: We're gonna hear about the statement that keith davidson tried to pass off as true you might remember in his testimony when he was like oh yeah that was mostly basically kind of true uh here's cohen's take there

0:41:46 Clip: Now, later in the month of January, January 30th of 2018, did you make more efforts to get Keith Davidson to have Stormy Daniels issue another denial statement? Yes. Why did you do that? Because despite what we thought was dying, the story dying, there were still persistent reporters that were looking into this and I felt an official statement from her another one would be helpful in putting an end to it do you also recall that around that same time there was some news that she might go on the Jimmy Kimmel show yes and so did you pressure Keith Davidson to have her sign this statement I did in fact did he provide that statement to you from Stormy Daniels he did did you know at the time that this statement was false Yes. How did you know? Because I helped him craft it. In addition, does the statement say that she was not paid any hush money? Yes. How do you know that she had been paid that money? Because I'm the one who paid it.

0:42:48 Matt: You go uh it's pretty much canceling out like an hour Yeah, there we go. Theme of the day. It's canceling out an hour of Keith Davidson's testimony right there in 30 seconds.

0:42:50 Liz: Closed yeah

0:42:48 Thomas: A pretty good answer. Yeah. Yeah yeah. I don't I really didn't know why he bothered. I know we talked about the time. It was like hey man why why are you bothering with us? What is the point? Okay it's

0:43:06 Matt: Excerpt this, but I just want to mention very quickly that we between these two excerpts that Cohen received a letter from the about the $130 ,000, the Federal Election Commission. And he responded in a letter of his own saying that he had used his own funds and neither the Trump org nor the Trump campaign was a party to this transaction. He has to acknowledge that that was misleading because, of course, that left out Donald Trump.

0:43:26 Thomas: The kindness of of his heart thing defense

0:43:27 Matt: Yes, that's right. And we covered this, I was just reminiscing back on Serious Inquiries Only, a long time ago, it feels like now, like a year and a half ago. We talked about this letter because people were using it as evidence that somehow the Daniels thing didn't happen, which was ridiculous. Obviously, he has to acknowledge that that letter that he sent was false. A little inside look at how New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman does her business.

0:43:50 Thomas: Yeah lots of stuff to talk about here well let's hear it I guess

0:43:55 Clip: Do you recognize what's contained in this exhibit, Mr. Cohen? I do. What is it? These are text messages between myself and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times. And when you say of the new York Times, who is Maggie Haberman? She is a reporter for the New York Times. And did you have her telephone numbers and emails in your phone contacts? Yes, ma'am. Except for the redactions here, is this an exact copy of some of the text communications you had with her on February 6th of 2018? It is. Can we blow up the text on February 5th of 2019? And Mr. Cohen, can you read them? So this is from February 6th of 2018 From me to Maggie Haberman Stating Big Boss just approved me responding to complaint and statement Please start writing and I will call you soon Who is the Big Boss That you were referring to in that text With Maggie Habermann President Donald Trump What did you mean by this text That he approved the statement And my response to the complaint And asking her to start writing a story In regard to the denial aisle. And were you intending to provide her with the statement about the matter? Yes, I was going to give it to her first so she had the scoop.

0:44:48 Thomas: Bowser who does do you think it is

0:45:10 Matt: Make sure she's the first to have that false statement.

0:45:11 Thomas: A lot of yeah a whole lot of resistance twitter was like dead maggie haberman dead to rights she's just a sort of like a agent of the trump campaign because of this. And, uh, I, I don't really think that's what this means. I mean, I don't love Maggie Haberman's coverage and she's done some stuff. I remember she withheld like something for her book that was kind of important.

0:45:37 Thomas: Uh, yeah, that was sketchy. So I'm not a huge fan, but like, I don't think this means that she's an agent of the Trump campaign. Like pointed, Oh, Michael Cohen told her to start writing. It's like, yeah, that's fucking Michael Cohen. He's in, he me thinks as a completely plausible Michael Cohen thing to say.

0:45:37 Liz: That was pretty sketchy right Right. I completely agree with that.

0:45:55 Matt: I imagine Wendy's like, please start making the hamburgers now. She just tells everybody to do things.

0:45:59 Thomas: I mean, he is that guy though. Like, yeah.

0:46:02 Matt: Yeah, pretty much. Mean, It's what you'd expect. Obviously, the Maggie Haberman would have Michael Cohen's phone number on the other way around and that they'd be in touch. I do think it's funny that he refers to the President of the United States as Big Boss in his text to a New York Times reporter. Very unserious, but what do you expect? Who are we dealing with here?

0:46:20 Thomas: The big boss. Yeah.

0:46:22 Matt: But, you know, again, this sort of thing about making sure that she's got the scoop. Also, I think this is kind of funny at the time because she was in the courtroom while they were talking about this text. It must have been a little uncomfortable for her.

0:46:31 Thomas: Yeah. I mean it does say something that he wanted to give a scoop to her, you know, it's kind of interesting.

0:46:32 Liz: That's pretty funny, actually. Yeah? Yeah.

0:46:36 Matt: I hints at something there I think and I mean she certainly does jealously guard her access to trump she always has uh it just you know I guess I this is access journalism but she's also able to cover the trump administration in ways that other people weren't so that's how it goes uh right we're going to hear now about the infamous raid on michael cohen's office and hotel room and we'll be talking about what is what was actually taken and why after we listen to this.

0:47:00 Clip: Through much of 2018, while you were acting as Mr. Trump, then President Trump's personal attorney, did you continue to lie about his role in the payoff to Stormy Daniels? Yes ma'am. I want to direct your attention now to April 9th of 2018. 18. What happened to you on that day? I was raided by the FBI. Can you tell the jury a little bit about that? So at the time I was residing at the Lowes Regency because my apartment had been flooded by the apartment above. We had moved into the Regency while the construction was taking place in the apartment. At seven o 'clock in the morning, there was a knock on the door and I looked through the peephole and I saw a ton of people out in the hallway.

0:47:23 Thomas: Raided my sausage factory. Oh Jesus.

0:47:39 Clip: And so I saw Badge. So I opened the door. They identified themselves as the FBI, asked me to step into the hallway, which I did. I found out that simultaneously they had also, the FBI raided my apartment that was under construction, my law office and TD Bank, which had a safety deposit box that I had just opened in order to put valuables in because I didn't want to keep them in the hotel or obviously in the apartment. It was under repair. And did the FBI search those locations for items of yours? They did. And what kind of things did they seize from you when they executed that search warrant at your hotel room? The search warrant gave them the right to take my two cell phones, to take any and all electronic devices, as well as records. They took my two cel phones and a series of my tax books, as well als other documents. I ultimately found out that they also basically packed up much of the documentation that was in my law office and took that as well.

0:48:37 Matt: So I wanted to point out what the search front was actually for and why. I don't think I was aware of this. Do you guys know why they're actually raiding his office? Not Trump.

0:48:46 Matt: Trump was part of it, but the main reason they were raiding His office was actually because he was running this weird bank loan scheme where he was not reporting a lot of his income and he was getting loans off of his taxi medallions, even though they had decreased in value.

0:48:59 Liz: The taxi medallion thing was so, so sketchy, but I was actually going to ask whether it was the taxi modellion thing, because I knew he got in a lot of trouble for that, because he was such a sketchball.

0:49:01 Matt: Everything about it. I think honestly, from what I was reading when I was reviewing the search warrant and just looking at the background of this today, I think that he might have gotten away with the payment if he hadn't been doing all this other stupid financial stuff yet

0:49:18 Liz: Mean, that's the other thing. I'm like, it's not enough that you're getting paid $4 million from Squire, Pat, and Boggs to, you know, shake people's hands.

0:49:23 Thomas: What

0:49:19 Matt: Again. Yeah, exactly. You have to be shifting these these things around. You have to be ripping off banks too.

0:49:28 Thomas: Was he gonna do take on another client

0:49:32 Liz: Know, I mean, six clients might've been, might've had a little too much. I mean reviewing Madam Toussaint's agreements are just, it's very heavy.

0:49:34 Matt: Break his bank.

0:49:37 Thomas: They're not making wax figures out of everybody you know it's hard to generate that kind of income that

0:49:40 Liz: I know. I know. It's hard to, yeah, it a very, it is a very specialty practice.

0:49:45 Thomas: Is so depressing the number of ways in which they easily could have gotten away with this because just like oh cool it's actually super easy to get away with With corruption, you just have to not be literal the stupidest people to ever try to do it.

0:49:56 Matt: And also, oh

0:49:57 Liz: That's the thing. It is just like, it like these people are so bad. It like, you we launder money I don't know um but I mean could you also I just want to go back to the fact so he's living at the lowes regency because his apartment gets flooded by the apartment above could you imagine like if you had to think of all the people who like one I would want to flood michael cohen's apartment just for fun but two it would be so annoying like he would probably be the worst person you could do it to because he would just like scream at you and

0:49:58 Thomas: The second stupidest people, they're fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:50:30 Liz: Threaten to sue you and then scream at you more and threaten to see and just be like oh okay I got it like chill

0:50:35 Matt: Association with Michael Cohen, I can only imagine those meetings.

0:50:39 Liz: Be a nightmare he would be the worst possible community member of any community

0:50:45 Matt: Actually And speaking of his condo or house, I think, I didn't put this together exactly because he might've had multiple these loans, know but that he used the HELOC loan, right, the Harmony Global Loan of Credit for the hush money payoff. And it looks like at least one of those loans was obtained through this bank stuff. So they just get crime upon crime. Be clear, though, the warrant was showing probable cause for conspiracy, bank and wire fraud, and illegal campaign contributions. So it was on the list. It was just way down the list, and the affidavit in this just goes on and on and on about all of his dealings with banks and the ways that he's ripping banks off and not reporting his income and doing super sketchy things on those medallions. Other thing, of course, and we've talked about this more than once before, is that they went to his law office and seized four million documents. And does anybody want to guess exactly how many of those documents were privileged?

0:51:28 Thomas: And the percentage, that's right. Yeah, the whole complaint was these are privileged dogs. Oh yeah, you're right, you can't do that. And then they have the taint team assembled, right? And you gotta assemble the tainting team. And think in the end it was like, what was it, 10% was actual 0 .3 oh my

0:51:41 Matt: It .3%. I had to go back and check. And it wasn't even the taint team. Their legal team actually had to disclose that in a court filing. They had to admit it. It was 12,000 out of 4 million documents were privileged. Clients? They're very prodigious. Yeah. Renato Mariotti, the commentator, said they're conceding the government's point that Cohen didn't practice law much, which is true. We know. Also, we learned during that time that he had three clients, I believe, active clients at the time. Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, who still has not acknowledged that he was actually really a client, he's just said he called him once in a while, and I believe there's another Republican guy. It was clearly something to do with a fundraiser, something to deal with covering up an affair. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's what it was for Hannity too, but I'm not going to speculate on that. Just saying, I wouldn'T be surprised. So that's, that's where he was up to, doing some fixing for these guys.

0:51:46 Liz: Unbelievable

0:51:51 Thomas: Four million documents are

0:52:32 Liz: Wow.

0:52:32 Matt: Yeah hannity had a statement at first that I never paid him never retained him whatever he'd kind of walk that back later and say that he actually had asked him for for some legal questions just want to point out on top of the four million electronic and paper files in the search they had more than a dozen mobile devices and ipads 20 external hard drives and a bunch of flash drives and laptops it's a lot for one little law office doesn't resemble how I'm running my law office but you Who knows? Maybe I'm doing it wrong. None of external hard drives.

0:52:57 Thomas: That shit was who knows I

0:53:00 Matt: Right. Before Now the witness intimidation. We're starting with the, don'T worry, I'm the president. I control the justice department. That's a good angle to start with, I guess.

0:53:06 Thomas: I am the law what

0:53:08 Clip: Now, you mentioned two cel phone that they took. Were those the two cell phones associated with the numbers ending 0114 containing the phone, the audio recording with Donald Trump that we heard previously, which is People's Exhibit 246? Yes, ma'am. So that was one of the phones that they seized, is that right? Yes. And they seized another cell phone as well in addition, is that right? Correct. Now, the cell phone that they took containing the audio recording of yourself and Mr. Trump, did you know that the FBI was going to show up and take your phones? No, ma 'am. Had you, prior to them showing up and taking those phones from you, altered that recording of your conversation with Mr. Trump on September 6th of 2016? No, ma'am. How did you feel at the time about the FBI searching your hotel room, your home, your law offices? How were you feeling at the Time? How do you describe your life being turned upside down? Concerned? Despondent? Angry? Were you frightened? Yes, ma'am. Did you come to understand, as a result of these search warrants that were executed, that you were under investigation by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York? Yes. Did you speak with President Trump shortly after these search wars were executed? I did. Can you explain the conversation? Can you describe the conversation you had with then -President Trump? I received a phone call from President Trump in response to me leaving a message for him to call me. I wanted, obviously, him to know what was taking place. And he said to me, don't worry, I'm the President of the United States. There's no, there's nothing here. Everything's going to be okay. Stay tough. You're going to do okay.

0:54:51 Clip: Have you spoken directly with Mr. Trump since that time? No, ma'am. Was your call from President Trump at that time important to you? Extremely important. Why was it important? Because I wanted, first of all, I was scared. This was the first time in my life anything like this had happened, and I wanted some reassurance that Mr. Trump had my back, especially his help with issues that related to him. How, if at all, did that call affect you in terms of how you acted going forward? Well, when he expressed to me, don't worry, everything's going to be fine, I'm the President of the United States, I felt reassured because I had the President of the U.S. protecting me, his Justice Department. This should go nowhere. And so I felt reassured, and I remained in the camp. What do you mean by in the camps? In the fold, in the Trump camp. Does that mean

0:54:50 Thomas: Feel so much better but

0:55:44 Clip: That you stayed loyal to him?

0:55:44 Matt: Right. Just want to point out very quickly that this is not an official act. He's telling a witness to stand tall. That's what he's doing here.

0:55:51 Thomas: Is he doing it officially though official

0:55:53 Matt: Is the president. That'S about the extent of it. I just wanted to point out that I can't think of even like an extremely creative way that you could say that telling Michael Cohen, don't worry about your recent search is an official act, but they got to try.

0:56:05 Liz: Completely. Yep. That's, I agree. But,

0:56:09 Matt: And borderline witness intimidation also.

0:56:12 Thomas: We haven't gotten to the tweets which I thought were definitely witness intimidation

0:56:15 Matt: They're getting there. Yeah. Yeah, but he's,

0:56:16 Clip: Ma 'am. And continued to lie about his involvement? Yes, madam. And did other people reach out to you around this time and express President Trump's support for you? Yes. In general, what did others tell you? You were loved. Don't worry. He's got your back. Most powerful guy in the country, if not the world. You're going to be okay. Now, after the FBI executed those search warrants and you received that call from President Trump and messages from others, did you initially maintain ties with President Trump? Only through other people. And did you believe that was important to do? Extremely.

0:56:53 Matt: The thing that came next was just reading the tweets. And we didn'T excerpt that. But just time, he was supporting Michael Cohen and doing what he could to defend him. So that's what those tweets were. I think we're going to get the bad tweets later about Michael Cohen. Now we're gonna meet my favorite new character in this trial, Robert Costello, who we're gonna learn a lot more about within the next few days.

0:57:11 Clip: Mr. Cohen, are you familiar with an attorney by the name of Robert Costello? I am How do you know him? I was introduced to Robert Costello by another lawyer named Jeff Citrin And how did Mr. Citrin first put you in touch with Mr. Costello Mr. Sitrin and I were both on the advisory board for Sterling National Bank And after the raid, he obviously heard about it and saw it He connected myself and Robert Costello together for the possibility of representing me in this matter Did Mr. Citrin tell you anything about Mr. Costello's background? Yes. What did he tell you in substance? He told me he was a criminal defense attorney and that he was incredibly close to Rudy Giuliani. Now, did there come a time in April of 2018, after the search warrants, that you met with Mr. Costello? Yes, ma'am. Where did you meet with him? I met with him in the conference room at the Regency Hotel where I was staying. And in general, what was your emotional state like at the time you met with him? Distraught, nervous, concerned. And can you tell the jury about your conversation at the Regency Hotel with Mr. Costello? So, it was Mr. Citron, myself, and Robert Costello. They asked me to show them copies of the Warrens to describe what happened, which I did at length. Basically, it Was many hours that many agents came. They took a series of books, documents, and I gave them the receipt of what was taken. With that, they turned around and they said, there are certain things you need to know. First is that you have to obviously try to remember what might be in any of those boxes, what they might be looking for. He walked me through the process. First time in my life. I never practiced criminal law. And then they asked me to consider Robert Costello for my representation. Presentation. Did Mr. Costello at that meeting tell you anything about his ties to Mr. Giuliani? Yes. In substance, what did he tell you? He said he had been at the Southern District of New York, that he is incredibly close to Rudy Giuliani, and what I mean by close, he means as close as you can imagine, and that would be a relationship that

0:59:15 Clip: Wouldbe very beneficial to you going forward with this matter.

0:59:15 Matt: I don't want to imagine being that close. It's

0:59:15 Thomas: They're fucking or yeah I can imagine they're definitely fucking each other

0:59:19 Matt: Terrible. That's what he's saying. As close as you can. Just don't make me imagine it. Please please make me stop.

0:59:27 Thomas: That's true because that's so disgusting no one would ever imagine it maybe it being friends is like as close as we could imagine

0:59:33 Matt: Close as I can imagine, yeah, that's true. Keeping your clothes on, that's not a

0:59:36 Thomas: Technicality

0:59:36 Liz: Know. I'm just like, I mean, like the last person I'd want my criminal defense lawyer to associate with is Rudy Giuliani.

0:59:37 Thomas: There I know god this is so weird okay

0:59:43 Matt: Recommendation. Also a gigantic conflict of interest I only just realized as I was listening to this. Citron says he's on the advisory board for Sterling National Bank. Sterling National Bank was the bank that, for the most part, Cohen was ripping off. It's a huge conflict of interests. It seems really strange. I just searched the search warrant just for fun. And there are 288 instances of the word Sterling in the search warrant. It's tied into why he's being charged with these tax things and wire fraud. Like Citroen, I don't know if he's a lawyer or what his deal is, but that just seems like a little bit of a problem that he's helping this guy out. Clear our imaginations from anything to do with Rudy Giuliani.

1:00:20 Clip: To you going forward with this matter. Can you explain why that wouldbete beneficial relationship for you? Yes. What did he say? Because Mr. Giuliani at the time had a very close relationship and was spending a tremendous amount of time with President Trump. And did he speak to you about a back channel of communications? He also stated to me that this would be a great way to have a back -channel communication to the president in order to ensure that you're still good and that you'RE still secure. During that meeting, did you tell Mr. Costello the truth about what Mr. Trump's role was in the payoff to Stormy Daniels? No. Why not? First, I wasn't sure that I was going to hire him. There was something really sketchy and wrong about him. He came with a retainer agreement, and I said, I'm not going to pay that right now. I'm still speaking to other lawyers. So I certainly wasn't going to expose anything to, one, someone I don't know, and two, I was having trouble connecting with. It.

1:01:19 Matt: You're too sketchy and wrong for Michael Cohen. Work.

1:01:22 Thomas: I imagine imagine he was just like a black like shadowy blob like I'm not even sure who's gonna be too sketchy for michael cohen somebody

1:01:31 Matt: But we will find out.

1:01:32 Liz: Someone needs to raid his home. Yeah.

1:01:34 Thomas: Who just like searched in a little dumpster and has like banana peels on them and stuff like I don't know who this would be

1:01:43 Matt: Now, I really don't want to spoil anything, but we're going to get to find out in a couple of days about Roger Robert Costello. We'll find out all about him.

1:01:47 Thomas: Wait oh

1:01:50 Clip: Mr. Cohen, if you would explain who those emails are to and from and read the email to the jury. It's from Robert Costello. It was sent on Saturday, April 21st, 2018 at 8:57 PM to me subject again, Giuliani. It is stating attorney client communication privileged. I spoke with Rudy. Very, very positive. You are loved. If you want to call me, I will give you the details. I I told him everything you asked me to, and he said they knew that. There was never a doubt, and they are in our corner. Rudy said this communication channel must be maintained. He called it crucial and noted how reassured they were that they had someone like me, who Rudy has known for so many years in his role. Sleep well tonight. You have friends in high places, end quote. P .S. Some very positive comments about you from the White House. Rudy noted how that followed my chat with him last night. What did you understand Mr. Costello to mean by, you are loved? By whom? By President Trump. What did he mean by that? What did I understand him to be referring to when he said, they are in our corner? Meaning the President and Rudy. And what did you understand him to refer to as, friends in high places? Friends in high place was President Trump!

1:02:50 Matt: Nobody is loved by choice and choice. Okay, so a quick callback once again to Sirius Inquiries only, where we enjoyed talking about the fact act that. Robert Costello's official explanation for the Friends in High Places comment, which was obvious corruption, was a tongue -in -cheek reference to a Garth Brooks song to a client whose state of mind was highly disturbed and suggested to us that he was suicidal. The Garth Brook song, I Got Friends in Low Places, which is not tongue -and -cheak reference to that song. There's no read of this by which that is that. Costello explained, we were simply trying to be decent human beings. There is no hidden message.

1:03:39 Thomas: That's the stupidest so So many country songs are a one word off play on a common saying. Like pretty, pretty common. And it's weird to be like, oh, no, that when I said the actual saying that this is a play on, I was talking about the country song. Doesn't make any sense. Like what?

1:03:58 Matt: None it's I mean everybody involved in this is so stupid but I mean what are you gonna say clearly you're you're throwing your weight around and trying to show that you've got the authority of the president here and then he's telling you to shut up and you with stick know with us there's no there'sno defense yeah

1:04:12 Thomas: Even bring up the song? It doesn't do anything to you. You could just still lie and be like, oh, just many guys, you know, lots of friends and, you they're not as bad as you are. No, I don't know.

1:04:20 Matt: Just talking shit yeah yeah

1:04:25 Thomas: They're higher up on the moral ladder than you.

1:04:26 Matt: This definitely all going to come up later so it's good we're following now but uh now we're going to go on to uh so michael cohen of course professional goon is going to start to get uh some some I taste of some goon medicine maybe I should write these things down goon

1:04:43 Clip: Can you read this email for the jury, please, and the to and from and the dates? It's from Robert Costello. Dated June 7th, 2018 at 3:16 p.m. to me. Marked, Attorney -Client Privilege Communication. Michael, to prove to you that Rudy Giuliani called me and I did not call him, I photographed the pages from my iPhone, which I am attaching. They show you called me at 11 .30 a .m., today on my cell, and that the next call I had was two incoming calls from Rudy Giuliani at 1:08 p.m., and then at 1:15 p.m., because the first cell call transmission was lost. Calling from Israel. And Giuliani called me back at 1:15. After you called me back at 2:43 p.m. and we spoke, I called and left a message for Rudy at 2:55 New York time. I will let you know when I hear back from him.

1:05:04 Thomas: Pages.

1:05:31 Clip: What do you understand, Mr. Costello, communicating here, and what was going on at the time? He was demonstrating his close, proximate relationship to Rudy Giuliani. Again, at this point in time, I had not retained Costello or advised him that I was going to be retaining him in order to stay in the fold, he was expressing to me his obvious relationship to Rudy Giuliani, who was proximate to President Trump. If you can take that down, please put up People's 207 in evidence. Thank you. Can we blow that up, the first paragraph? Is there a way to blow up the first, the paragraph? Can we see the date at the top of the email? Can we blew up the top at the email for Mr. Cohen? Can

1:05:31 Matt: So pathetic well acted

1:06:12 Clip: You explain who it is from and who it to and the date? Again, from Robert Costello. It's dated June 13th of 2018 at 3:21 p.m. Subject, forward update draft. Again, it's sent to me. Can you read that first paragraph? Michael, since you jumped off the phone rather abruptly, I did not get a chance to tell you that my friend has communicated to me that he is meeting with his client this evening.

1:06:12 Matt: Except

1:06:37 Clip: And he added, if there was anything you wanted to convey, you should tell me, and my friend will bring it up for discussion this evening." Who did you understand his reference to be, my friend? In other words, who was my friend that he is meeting with, his client this evening? Who didyou understand that to be a reference to? Rudy Giuliani. Who would Mr. Giuliani's client be? Donald J. Trump, President Trump. Did you have some understanding about why he didn't just say outright, Rudy Giuliano and President Trump? Sort of to be covert. It's all back -channel, sort of spy -ish. Didn't want to put anybody's name Why on this one as opposed to this one But clearly never mentioning President Trump Using code words Can

1:06:37 Thomas: I've never seen someone work so hard to get a client.

1:06:46 Liz: So weird.

1:07:21 Clip: We blow up the second paragraph in the email?

1:07:21 Matt: That if you scroll up a little bit further you'll see the text where he's proving that he is in touch with Rudy Giuliani like every five minutes with screenshots so you know it's a different friend obviously a totally different friend that we're talking about.

1:07:24 Clip: Read that, Mr. Cohen I

1:07:29 Thomas: So that we got we're not dealing with the people here at all

1:07:34 Matt: We really deserve better.

1:07:36 Clip: Would suggest that you give this invitation Some real thought Today's newspaper story should not rattle you The event announced today we thought Would be announced Friday or Monday So it's merely a difference of timing MWE, McDermott, Will, and Emery Were brought in to a discreet task They performed those services in an exemplary fashion. This is not a change in plan. Rather, it is exactly what was planned. Your message, or the message of MWE, should be positive and not negative in any way. What you do next is for you to decide, but if that choice requires any discussion with my friend's client, you have the opportunity to convey that this evening, but only if you so decide. Again, what did you understand him to be saying, if you want to convey something to my friend? Talking about potential pre -pardons, I believe. Can we blow up the third paragraph? Who is my friend's client in that paragraph? President Trump. Read the third paragraphe. I must tell you, quite frankly, that I'm not used to listening to abuse like today's conversation. You have called me numerous times over the last month to discuss issues. I have already tried to be as helpful as I could. You told me back in April that I was part of the team. I've acted accordingly on your behalf. When I suggested that we meet and discuss a strategy following this news, you suddenly took a new approach and stated, that's not going to happen. Stunned by this remark, I was asking you for a clarification of our legal relationship. You indicated that you would be talking to someone in a boutique firm that was not ready to get involved. When I noted that you were willing to sit down with them, but not to sit with us, you had an unfortunate outburst. I relayed the situation to Jeff Citrin, who suggested that you were probably just having a bad moment, but that it was necessary to see clarification of our position with you in light of your remarks. What was happening at the time? What did you understand this to be about? So, Mr. Costello, again, pressuring me, as he had done, with constant calls and sending me emails and so on, and he wanted to absolutely be retained to represent me in this matter. I stated to him that I was speaking with someone in a boutique firm and that we were still not ready for the engagement. He was angered that I was willing to sit down with that other attorney, but not sit down with them, and so I had enough and I told him. Then it goes on to mention Jeff Citrin, that is the lawyer who had the relationship with... on the advisory board of Sterling Bank for a couple of years. And then, of course, expressed in the last line that it was necessary to see clarification of the position in light of me telling them that's just not going to happen. My concern here was that all of these conversations were being relayed back to Mr. Giuliani and, of course, his client, President Trump. Can we pull up the last paragraph in the email? Can you read that, Mr. Cohen? "Please remember, if you want or need to communicate something, please let me know and I will see that it gets done. I hope I am wrong, but it seems to both Jeff and I, perhaps we have been played here. Let me know."

1:10:30 Clip: What you want to do. Do. What did you understand him to mean that it seemed like he was being played here? I was not going to retain them. That they had, of course, expressed, Jeff, I should say, Bob Costello had expressed clearly to Mr. Giuliani that he was on the team, that he Was going to be representing me. The concern here was that I was going to go to another lawyer and retain another lawyer to represent me in this matter. What Did you understand Him to mean by, if you need to to communicate something, he would get it done. Who did you understand he was talking about communicating with? To Rudy Giuliani, ultimately to reach President Trump.

1:11:08 Thomas: Untangle that mess what the hell so it's like this guy was trying to be his attorney and it seemed like yeah it's it's just weird because it seems like Michael Cohen for once I can't believe I'm going to say this seems like my phone wasn't the asshole in this situation but but am I misinterpreting it?

1:11:14 Matt: So hard. No. Michael Cohen is actually learning what it's like to get obnoxious calls and emails all of the time from a lawyer you don't want to talk to. It's good for him, I think, getting that goon medicine.

1:11:34 Liz: Seriously. This guy seems so annoying.

1:11:37 Matt: It's so pathetic, too, the way he keeps emphasizing that he's real tight with Giuliani and like, here, look, he called me and I didn't call him. And here's a screenshot.

1:11:45 Liz: No, no, no. Here's a photograph. That was the other thing. He doesn't even know the word screenshot, okay? How could you retain the man as your lawyer when he said, I'm sending you a photograph of pages of my iPhone?

1:11:48 Matt: A photo. Good catch. That's

1:11:51 Thomas: He said, I photographed the pages in my iPhone.

1:11:57 Liz: Absolutely not. You do not know technology. Not my lawyer I would

1:12:00 Matt: Giuliani, of course, retained for cybersecurity or whatever he's getting paid for. I'm sure he does things about the same. And Costello needed to be able to tell Giuliani that we've got this guy, he's locked down, he's in the fold. And the idea that he shows up with a retainer agreement, obviously michael cohen doesn't sign it doesn't want him as a lawyer and then just keeps pestering and pestering and telling him that you know it's really sucks you haven't hired me yet and what's wrong with you and it seems like we had a deal and it looks like it's falling through it just this is so obnoxious but it's good for cohen like I said I think he needs to feel know what it feels like yeah

1:12:30 Thomas: This what I've been doing to everyone this whole time? So yeah I don't know if you know this story or what, but like what is this guy trying to do? Is it just that he sees, okay this Michael Cohen guy, he's in a vulnerable state, he needs to back channel to Trump, probably, but can't, So I'm going to come in here and like, you I can make a little money out of this guy by being the back channel, channel to Trump. Or is it like, is he's he have some other purposes? Is he trying to help Giuliani or Trump by trying to ensure that Cohen's on the, on the right side or what?

1:13:01 Matt: And trump's really famous for this obviously making sure that he gets lawyers for people and that their stories stay consistent and they do not say anything against Trump. I would assume that's what this is.

1:13:10 Liz: Assume so. I mean, I guess the only thing is, I actually wonder, like, how coordinated this was even by Trump, believe it or not, in the sense that like this guy's approach is just so sketchy. He's like, look, I had a phone call with Rudy Giuliani, see a screen. Like, I'm sure they were kind of like, hey, like, why don't you go try to represent Cohen, you know, and then like this guy just may have been more sketchy and weird about it and sketched out Cohen.

1:13:36 Matt: But Cohen says, they had expressed that Bob Costello had expressed clearly to Mr. Giuliani that he was on the team and that he was going to be representing me. So I guess once you made that, you got to try to make it happen. But just a total fail. Couldn't make it work. Now we're going to keep going on more Costello communications.

1:13:46 Liz: That's exactly right oh

1:13:56 Clip: Blow up the last paragraph as well in this email.

1:14:00 Clip: You are making a very big mistake if you believe the stories these journalists are writing about you. They want you to cave. They wants you to fail. They do not want you to persevere and succeed. If you really believe you are not being supported properly by your former boss, then you should make your position known. If really want certain things to happen, you should make that known. If you really want other lawyers to refrain from saying this or that, you shouldn't make it known. You have the ability to make that communication when you want to, whether you exercise that ability is totally up to you. What did you understand, Mr. Costello, to be communicating to you there? And this is part of the pressure campaign, that everyone is lying to you, that you're still regarded, the president still supports you, do not speak, do not listen to what any of the journalists or anybody are saying, and stay in the fold. Don't flip. Don't speak. Don'T cooperate. Did you understand that he was, what did you understand he was telling you about whether you should cooperate with law enforcement? Not to. What did you understand him to be saying to you in terms of if you really want things to happen, if you want to make things known, you should let me know. What Did you Understand that to be about? Again, him Him being a back channel. Back channel to who? Back channel to the president via Rudy Giuliani.

1:15:15 Matt: So this is a point at which Cohen is going to start to to turn. He's had enough. This is in June 2018, and we're going to head into August 2018 here pretty soon. I think that's what's coming up next. We'll go to the next clip.

1:15:29 Clip: Now, in the months after those FBI raids on your home, your office, your hotel room, in addition to seeking advice from lawyers about what to do, did you have some conversations with your family about the matter? Yes. And tell the jury a bit about those conversations with your family. Well, at that point in time we didn't even know what the Southern District of New York was even looking at. And the conversations with my family was what to do. We're in this unique situation I've never experienced, and my family, my wife, my daughter, my son, all said to me, why are you holding onto this loyalty? What are you doing? We're supposed to be your first loyalty. So what decision did you make? That it was about time to listen to them. What did you decide about where your loyalty should be going forward? To my wife. My daughter, my son and the country. Let me direct your attention now to August 21st, 2018, 2018, did you plead guilty on that day in a court in the Southern District of New York to a number of federal crimes? I did. By that time in late August of 2018, what, if anything, had you decided about whether you would continue to lie for President Trump? I made a decision based on the conversation that I had with my family, I would not lie for president Trump any longer. And

1:16:05 Matt: Questions.

1:16:19 Liz: Come on yeah

1:16:46 Clip: On August 21st, 2018, did you plead guilty to one count of making an excessive campaign contribution in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act? I did. What did that charge relate to? Stormy Daniels. And did it relate to specifically your paying $130 ,000 to Stormy Daniels to buy the life rights to her story so that it would not be public and that it was done on behalf of President Trump to influence the election? Yes. Did you admit that you paid that money to Stormy Daniels in order to influence Mr. Trump's electoral prospects? Objection. Approach. Please read back the last two questions. We object to leading the witness. If the question is, did you plead guilty? Yes. What did you plea guilty to? That's fair. But just leading him through the allegations? That's true. I apologize. That's fair. I was sustaining the objection. And also let me know if you want a limiting instruction to the jury. And there's a few more questions about the plea. And I do. Thank you, Judge. The objection is sustained. Thank you. In fact, Mr. Cohen, did you pay the money to Stormy Daniels in order to influence the election for Mr. Trump? Objection. Sustained. Why, in fact, didyou pay that money toStormy Daniel's? To ensure that the story would not come out, would not affect Mr. Trump's chances of becoming President of the United States. If not for the campaign, Mr. Cohen, would you have paid that money to Stormy Daniels? No, ma 'am. Objection. Overruled. You can answer. No, man. At whose direction and on whose behalf did you commit that crime? On behalf of Mr. Donald Trump.

1:16:46 Matt: As of August 2018, more

1:18:37 Thomas: Closed. Again if I were on the prosecution side and I had the ability to kind of control cohen at all I'd be like hey man cool it on the like my country bullshit no that's no one's gonna buy that like that's just stupid literally no one believes you man I'm sorry

1:18:39 Matt: Just hard -of -the -case stuff. Yeah, right. Nobody believes that. Yeah, it's August 2018 and you've watched Trump be president for a while now. Now, you knew what kind of president he was going to be, but yeah, the objection up here about, that was actually a pretty bad question along the lines of the ones we were talking about before, Liz. You admit that you paid that money to Stormy Daniels in order to influence Mr. Trump's electoral prospects? It's kind of a lot.

1:19:12 Thomas: Hmm yeah that is a

1:19:13 Matt: That's how they work through. Yeah, leading and assumption. Assumption and yeah all kinds of stuff there yeah

1:19:14 Thomas: Lot because like there's kind of compound right there's the did you admit and there's like the other part of it yeah

1:19:23 Liz: It's kind of a terrible question and everything I mean the only thing that I would just say that I'm surprised is and there are a bunch of other moments where I didn't even bring it up but there there's just so many leading questions by the prosecution and there's so many other times they could have done this um defense could have objected I mean it's good that they did here but uh because it's so, I mean, this is just so. Would have objected, I don't know why the defense prosecution, didn't object to like very, very last question. Direction, on whose behalf did you commit that crime? Crime. Don't know. I mean, I guess it's, I mean it's not leading, but it's kind demanding a legal conclusion. I would have objected to that, but

1:19:59 Matt: Uh they also don't mention actually I was looking back here and uh I understand why the prosecution is doing this but when they say august 21st 2018 did you plead guilty to one count of making an excessive campaign contribution yes he did that but he also pled to eight other counts involving financial crimes so I guess they didn't want to get off the plot too much but it seems like that's leaving things open on cross too about you know all the many financial crimes it's like should get that out um right and And now we're going to hear some Trump tweets. And I do kind of wish we had audio for this one, because I assume that Michael Cohen has a Trump impression.

1:20:25 Matt: We'd have to listen to his podcast to hear it. But I mean, everybody he works for him has to have a Trump expression. Everybody in America has a Trump Impression.

1:20:31 Liz: Can I just say the actor that does Michael Cohen, I honestly forgot a little while back there that it wasn't Michael Cohen. I was like, I was just thinking like, oh, that's a funny way that Michael Cohen says this. I was like, no, that's not Michael Cohen. That's how good he is. Well, anyway.

1:20:38 Matt: Just beautiful. Yeah, method

1:20:48 Thomas: How nice

1:20:49 Matt: Work here. I

1:20:49 Clip: What are the dates of these tweets by President Trump? August 22nd of 2018. Were these the day after you pled guilty in federal court? Yes, ma 'am. Can you please read one and then the other? First of all, were you aware of President Trump tweeting these on that day? Yes. On his post, he writes, If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen.

1:21:10 Matt: Had imagined.

1:21:17 Clip: Then he put another one, I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. Justice took a 12 -year -old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him, and unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to break, make up stories in order to get a deal. Such respect for a brave man. Who did you understand these tweets by Trump to be addressed to? To me.

1:21:15 Thomas: I forgot so good what a burn

1:21:18 Matt: Thumbs up emoji. Brad Pitt.

1:21:40 Clip: What, if any, message did you understanding he was communicating to you? Certainly displeasure that I no longer, I guess, was important to the fold. What, if anything, did you understand was being communicated to you about whether you should cooperate with law enforcement? No, do not cooperate. What ,if any, effect did it have on you at the time to have the President of the United States tweeting this about you the day after you pled guilty? It caused a lot of angst, anxiety. Now you can take those down. Now, in spite of President Trump's public tweets about you, About three months later, on November 29th, 2018, did you also plead guilty to one count of making false statements to Congress in 2017? Yes, ma 'am. And was that for making false payments to Congress and 2017 in connection with the Russia probe that you described previously to the jury? Yes, a number of times. And the duration which I had stated and submitted as part of the record that I had spoken to Mr. Trump about the Trump Tower Moscow project. And were those false statements that you made to Congress in 2017 while you were Mr. Trump's personal counsel? Yes, ma 'am. President Trump's personal counsel. Yes, madame.

1:21:42 Liz: That's hilarious.

1:22:58 Matt: We heard you. So again just kind of clearly trying to get through the impeachment stuff and we're gonna do some more impeachment stuff now here I think well

1:23:07 Clip: What, if anything else, did you testify about concerning the matter? I testified about the reimbursement of the $130 ,000 with the payments made to me on the monthly basis. Did you apologize to Congress during that testimony? I apologize to Congress. I apologize to the country. I apologize to my family. Did you apologize to Congress for also lying to them in 2017?

1:23:28 Matt: What if we don't accept your apology

1:23:32 Clip: Objection. Sustained. What, if anything, did you apologize to Congress about specifically? For lying to them in the 2017 hearing that I was subpoenaed to attend. Did you also apologize to the American public? I did. What did you apologize to them for? To the American public for? For lying to them. For acting in a way that suppressed information that the citizenry had a right to know in order to make the determination of the individual who was seeking the highest office in the land. What was that experience like for you, to testify so publicly before Congress? Horrible. Now, before you surrendered to prison in May of 2019 to serve out your sentence, did you also meet with and provide information to prosecutors, for example, from the special counsel's office? Yes. Is that the office that was investigating the Mueller investigation? Yes. Did you meet with them on a number of times? Yes. And provide information to them? I did. To be clear, on your very first meeting with them in August of 2018, did you tell them the truth about your testimony before Congress in 2017? I did not. Why not? Because I was still holding on to loyalty to President Trump. And after pleading guilty in August of 2018, August 21st of 2018 Did you meet with the special counsel's office on a number of other occasions? I did At that point, did you admit that your prior statements to Congress were false? Yes And did you provide them with other truthful testimony? I did

1:23:28 Thomas: Sorry country I just

1:25:09 Matt: So again we just have to establish that our star witness is just an absolute liar um loves to lie lies all over the place loves to congress loves to the american people which by the way I no big deal michael it's fine like we're good but thanks for the apology

1:25:23 Thomas: Assumed you were lying michael cohen so yeah you don't need to apologize for me yeah

1:25:25 Matt: It's fine. And also, I'd already figured out my choice about Donald Trump before you helped to hide this information, so we're good.

1:25:31 Thomas: Well I mean he does need to apologize for helping actually have him be elected though like didn't change my vote but

1:25:37 Matt: Yeah, there were other people that hadn't made their choice, apparently, somehow. All and we have to establish quickly that Michael Cohen is not here for anything other than his free will. Part of the testimony. All

1:25:47 Clip: Now, since 2018, when you pled guilty to federal crimes And you were sentenced for those federal crimes Have you applied to the court in the Southern District to receive a reduction in the sentence that you received there in that federal court? Yes. Have you and your attorneys at times asked our office to provide you with a letter detailing your cooperation with our office? You're providing information to us on a number of occasions at our request. Yes, ma 'am. And was that to assist you for your request in seeking a reduction in your sentence for those federal crimes? Yes. In the year 20... Withdrawn. On. In 2021, was it your understanding that our office said we might provide you with such a letter detailing your cooperation with our office if the Southern District of New York prosecutors would consider it in reducing your sentence? Yes, ma 'am. And was it you're understanding that the Southern district prosecutors declined to accept such a letter as a basis to reduce your sentence. Yes. And so as a result, did our office ever provide you was such a a letter? No, ma 'am. Despite that, have you still continued to provide our office with information and continued to meet with us at our requests? I have. Did your seeking a letter from our office detailing your cooperation impact you telling the truth in meetings with our office? No ma' am. Did it impact your telling the true in your testimony before the grand jury? No mam. Did it impact your telling the truth here in court? No, ma 'am.

1:27:23 Matt: Right. Easy enough. Pretty straightforward. He's cooperating of his own will, and he didn't end up getting any help on anything and he's good and

1:27:30 Thomas: I forget what are the rules on the like plea deal thing like you can bring it up like oh he's just saying this to to get get a better sentence for stuff just in general geez

1:27:39 Liz: Yeah. It. You can bring that up in any... impeach I a witness on almost anything, right? Sort of bad... Not a defendant, but a witness. Any sort bad conduct. Anything at all. Obviously, with any sort of cooperating witness, you're going to want to impeach them on the basis of the fact that the reason why they're saying what they're seeing is because they signed a cooperation agreement or if one is pending because they're hoping to get one and get substantial benefit from what they're staying. And it's one of the most effective ways on how to impeache a witness. I go to these things called CLEs, which are like continuing legal educations, and there there will be entire CLEs on how to impeach a cooperating witness, right? Like what sort of tactics to use, how to bring up things that will cause doubts in the minds of jurors as to the veracity of what the witness is saying.

1:28:27 Matt: Of course he is uh in no way actually cooperating he's doing his own free will because he has a podcast uh most importantly a podcast called mea culpa so you know he's got to show up and do some mea culping all

1:28:38 Liz: Something sort of interesting about what he was dealing with with SDNY. York, You the Southern District of New York is famously hard -nosed on this sort of stuff. One of the things that is really interesting about them is, you know, you might notice that he said that he pled guilty to all these crimes. They will not make any say any recommendation to a plee prior to pleading guilty. Guilty. So you're just pleading guilty on the basis of the fact that you hope that they will take kindly to you in how they ask for sentencing from the judge. It's really nuts. Couldn't believe that when I learned that. Why would you ever plead guilty? But that's how much, frankly, they have people by the balls.

1:29:05 Matt: Who yeah that's shocking sure yeah another pretty famous for that over there in the mother court, as we don't like to call it. I'm just going to keep calling it that.

1:29:24 Liz: If you think of all the Sam and Bankman -Fried stuff. If you remember, a bunch of people just pled guilty up front, right?

1:29:27 Matt: Yeah.

1:29:28 Liz: The person who, you know, his co, all the co, you know, investors and the co -CO and whatever and the woman, I'm forgetting the name, but the woman that he was sort of dating. They did so with no promise whatsoever. It's crazy.

1:29:24 Thomas: So good let's

1:29:40 Matt: To know if considering crimes in the Southern District of New York.

1:29:42 Liz: Don't commit them.

1:29:43 Matt: That's a good idea. Or stick with the smaller stuff and end up with... You'll get Liz as your your lawyer a few.

1:29:44 Liz: Yeah. Just want to make sure, guys. That's not legal advice, but don't do it.

1:29:49 Thomas: Say that's why we we bring on the best legal experts in the business

1:29:53 Matt: Just don't commit federal crimes. You might remember all the way back in Todd Blanche's opening statement, the prosecution objected, and it was sustained. There was an objection during the opening statement which was never great of the way that he characterized Michael Cohen as a perjurer. And even if you don't remember this, Todd Blanch sure does. So we're going to hear about that.

1:30:09 Liz: Mm -hm. And

1:30:10 Clip: Now, Mr. Cohen, in October of 2023, did you testify at trial pursuant to a subpoena? Were you called to testify for the New York Attorney General's office in a case, a civil case against Mr. Trump, the Trump Organization, and some other executives at the Trump organization? I was. And did you justify over the course of two days? Yes, ma'm. And in connection with your testimony, were you also cross -examined by Mr. Trump's lawyers in that case? I was. And in particular, were you asked, withdrawn, in particular were you cross -examined about statements that you said you'd made publicly? I see Mr. Blanche is rising. Sorry. It's all right. Would you like to approach?

1:30:50 Matt: I see Mr. Blanch is rising. I

1:30:52 Clip: Objection.

1:30:53 Matt: Couldn't miss that before.

1:30:53 Clip: Come up, judge. In opening statements, when I started talking about this incident, you sustained an objection because because the people represented to your honor that it was argument. And now they're trying to elicit it from this witness on direct. I'm definitely getting into that on cross. This seems appropriate for them on redirect, not on direct." I wasn't able to open on this. The objection was sustained on this." I just intend to elicit why he told the court under cross -examination that he had lied to Judge Pauly in terms of his criminal plea. That's all. Paul, I'm not getting into anything further, but I'm going to have him explain why he told... He testified in that case that he had lied to Judge Pauly. It's consistent with what he testified to. I'm nicht trying to cry over spilt milk. That was exactly what was sustained on opening, that he hade lied under oath to Judge Paulie. You said committed perjury. You called him a perjurer when he said that. I think you did. He admitted he committed perjory. He did not. He said he lied to judge Pauley. It was a fine line. It was the use of the word perjury or perjurer that I sustained. Fine. I withdraw my objection. I needed to get that off my chest. The objection is

1:32:12 Clip: Withdrawn.

1:32:14 Matt: Just to point out how personally he took that being objected to. So we should actually explain very quickly, break just that down to be sure that we understood what was going on there, that the opening, he referred to Michael Cohen as a perjurer even though he's never been convicted of perjury. And he was basing that on the idea that he had told examination at a different case. He admitted that he had led to Judge Pauly in his plea in August of 2018. That's where we're coming down to here. And so that would legally be perjury if he were charged with it, but he'd never been charged with it. He was under oath at the time. So yeah.

1:32:43 Thomas: Interesting opening

1:32:45 Liz: Just to even and add a little more to it, so a little more spin. In opening arguments, you can't an argument, right? You know, ironically.

1:32:53 Thomas: Statements Statements. Yeah.

1:32:54 Liz: Open statements, right, so it's an opening statement, closing argument, right? And so, you know, any sort of thing that's saying, you if you're going to call, like, if your going to to say, you're going to hear a witness, Lydie, just any sort of thing that isn't like that is argument as opposed to just kind of a bit more of like a perspective. Know, this is what the evidence will show. What, what he could have said and knock on objection objected to with something like, you Know, the evidence will Show that he told judge Pauly under under oath that he had lied he could have easily said that right but you can't even I guess you know saying it's a really fine line um honestly I think think um the prosecution probably shouldn't have objected because it really isn't in terms of argument like that's really not a stretch but um acceptable to say in obviously a closing um

1:33:42 Matt: Just want to point out that his opening was on April 22nd. It is May 14th, and he is still burning up about it. He just had to get it out of his chest.

1:33:48 Thomas: Well, I mean, yeah, yeah.

1:33:50 Matt: Yeah, no, it's true. It's true, It's pretty embarrassing. It's not great to be objected.

1:33:49 Liz: It I get it it's

1:33:53 Matt: No, that's true. You're right. And

1:33:54 Thomas: And you're saying that you don't think it was, yeah you're saying that, you know, you're not saying that. That you don'T think it WAS like a great objection.

1:33:55 Liz: Really bad to be objected to in your opening I think they should have let that one slide I you know he's not a convicted perjurer but he's he's gonna be saying that he lied under oath you know um all the argument that's not like the most offensive one I've ever heard I think I I I just, I think the prosecution just shouldn't have objected. I think they should have let that one slide. There's They a lot of other times where, you he'd said, you Cohen is the lyingest liar of all liars. That's really objectionable for an opening and totally fine for a closing, but it's just, you know, referring to him as a perjurer.

1:34:03 Thomas: Hmm. Interesting.

1:34:30 Matt: Factual.

1:34:32 Thomas: Yeah.

1:34:35 Matt: He's not a murderer. He just killed somebody in cold blood. It's that sort of thing, I guess.

1:34:40 Liz: Yeah. All I'm saying is, yeah, he's been holding on to that, but obviously he's pissed off and I just don't think of all the things that he did. He probably did try to make some efforts to have a non -argumentative opening statement, and he wasn't really objected to otherwise. And I'm like, this is not the worst. So I

1:34:53 Matt: I guess I'm not really a grudge holder, but I can see it.

1:34:55 Liz: Unfortunately on Team Todd Blanche on this one. The

1:34:58 Matt: Fair enough. Fair enough。 I just can't imagine holding a grudge.

1:35:00 Clip: Mr. Cohen, in particular, were you cross -examined about statements that you've made about feeling that it was unfair for you to have been criminally prosecuted for tax evasion and a false statement to the bank? Yes, ma 'am. And did Mr. Trump's lawyers ask you if, as a result of those public statements you had made, that you had therefore lied in August of 2018 before the judge who took your plea, meaning that you lied in taking a criminal plea to tax evasion and bank fraud? Yes, they did ask that. Did you admit under questioning that, yes, you told Judge Pauly that it was a lie when you agreed to plead guilty to those counts? Yes. Can you explain, very briefly, what you meant when you said, yes, you lied to Judge Pauly when you took that criminal plea to those counts in 2018? What I was saying, I was going to take responsibility because the underlying fact, I have never disputed. But it goes back again to the issue that I was given 48 hours to accept their plea offer, or they were going to file an 80 -page indictment that included my wife, and I was goign to protect my wife. And now, just to make sure that I'm clear, you've never said that you lied to Judge Pauly about your plea to the two campaign finance violations. Is that right? Objection. That's correct. Sustained as to form, the answer is stricken.

1:36:21 Matt: Kind of interesting. I hadn't really thought about that. It is very important, first of all, they get it out that he admitted that he didn't say anything about lying about the campaign finance violations, just about the other counts involving the financial stuff. So he's clear, at least on that. I'm not sure I understand the objection to form this one.

1:36:36 Liz: Just to make sure I'm clear, you've never said that you lied to Judge Pauly about your plea to the two camp. Is that right? Like, that's super leading. It's like three different kind of compounds um

1:36:45 Matt: Yeah. That is pretty bad actually.

1:36:47 Liz: Like pretty bad.

1:36:48 Matt: Yeah. Nevermind. The whole form of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

1:36:48 Liz: It's like a lot. Yeah, the whole form.

1:36:52 Matt: Yeah. It's not really repeating anything he's said either. It just kind of, it's conclusory. It gets in there. This is just a little closing bit from the direct I liked. I think that if possible, we should play Frank Sinatra's My Way underneath this one. Quick and easy.

1:37:05 Liz: Like always like just after every clip honestly stood

1:37:07 Clip: Mr. Cohen, do you have any regrets about your past work and your association with Donald Trump? I do. What are they? I regret doing things for him that I should not have. Lying, bullying people in order to effectuate a goal. I don't regret working at the Trump organization because, as I expressed before, some very interesting, great times. But to keep the loyalty and to do the things that he asked me to do, I violated my moral compass. And I suffered the penalty, as has my family. Nothing further, Your Honor. Mr.

1:37:44 Thomas: It's like, I just found out about this moral compass and it turns out, didn't know I had it.

1:37:50 Matt: Regrets, I've had a few.

1:37:51 Liz: Up and screamed objection I'm sorry is whether or not he has regrets is irrelevant it's not a relevant question it's it's just not relevant and they're just trying to do it to make I mean I mean listen no juror is gonna think that he's a good guy or anything like that but like yeah they're just doing it to try to humanize him and that's not relevant I'm not helpful and I it is insane to me that the defense did not stand they should have they should've seen this for what it was it was a pre -prepared practiced answer to close it out and humanize them and they should should have stood up and objected instead of obviously stewing about that stupid thing from the opening.

1:38:34 Thomas: Too busy holding grudges, you know, to focus on the actual trial.

1:38:37 Liz: The answer also, they could have objected. You know, sometimes it's hard to get every question, but like, I regret doing things I shouldn't have. Objection. Your honor, this isn't relevant. Boom. Move on. Close it out. Done.

1:38:49 Thomas: You know, it's it's funny you said that because when I was directing Eli the was like, hey, Eli, I think that this is something that he definitely had ready. I was like can you deliver this as though like he definitely knew he was going to have a speech like this ready to go. And so, yeah.

1:39:04 Matt: He's pulling

1:39:05 Liz: To your point.

1:39:05 Matt: A note card out of his pocket. Yeah?

1:39:07 Liz: Exactly. Exactly like Like you, exactly. This was canned, prepared practice and not relevant.

1:39:14 Matt: Right. So that is the end of Michael Cohen's direct examination. And now Todd Blanch is going to come back with one of the best grudgers of all time in legal history. So again, just for those who don't know what we're about to hear, remember that we have the lead defense attorney in the most important criminal trial in US history to date, like one of them, state trials, I think I'd argue. Got his big chance to cross examine the most important witness in the most Important Trial, certainly that he'll ever do, and one of the most Important Trials we'll ever see. What do you think he's going to ask him about? I

1:39:18 Thomas: So good. No,

1:39:45 Clip: Cohen, my name is Todd Blanche. You and I have never spoken or met before, have we? We have not. But you know who I am, don't you? I do. As a matter of fact, on April 23rd, so after the trial started in this case, you went on TikTok and called me a crying little shit, didn't you?" Sounds like something I would say. Objection, Your Honor. Sustained, sustained. Sustained. Do you remember on April 20th, which is again after this trial started, you commented about myself and Ms. Necklace about this case, correct? Objection, Your Honor. Sustain. Please approach. Why are you making this about yourself? Your Honor... One at a time, please.

1:40:29 Liz: Thank you. Thank you! Ah!

1:40:30 Clip: I did not hear you, Your honor. I said, why are you doing this? Why are You making this About Yourself? I'm not making it about myself, Your Honour. I have a right to show this witness's bias. And he has expressed bias about the lawyers just because of who we represent. Well... I mean, Judge, it's crystal clear under Rule 613 that we are allowed to prove... I can't hear you. It's clear under Rules 615 that we're allowed to proof bias in whatever form. It doesn't just matter if it's bias directed at the defendant. It can be bias about lawyers on the case as well, of course. That's not true. It's not admissible if it is not about the defendant It doesn't matter if he has bias toward you. It doesn' t matter. The issue is whether he has bias toward the defendant. Don't make it about yourself. I'm not trying to make it about myself, Your Honor.

1:40:38 Liz: Are you dumb shit? Oh

1:41:22 Clip: I am just trying to show his bias toward the defendant Just don't make about yourself I am going to sustain the objection and instruct the jury. Please don't make it yourself Judge, I would ask The objection is sustained Judge, I would ask that the question be stricken The question is stricken from the record.

1:41:22 Liz: My god. This is so cringe. I

1:41:41 Matt: A crying little shit.

1:41:42 Thomas: So good I

1:41:44 Liz: Mean, I cannot. It's so, is so embarrassing. I

1:41:50 Thomas: Can't emphasize enough that these are word for word like we're not putting anything into this like yeah it's so good oh

1:41:54 Matt: I'm looking at the transcript as I, yeah, it's incredible. Couldn't have written it better. Why

1:42:01 Liz: Why are you making this about yourself? Like, Really? Like, it's just, um,

1:42:03 Matt: What is the strategy?

1:42:05 Thomas: It sounds like he genuinely didn't understand the rule and then he thought it is useful if he... Go ahead. Well,

1:42:06 Matt: I think

1:42:11 Liz: That's the other thing. I have no idea what he's talking about when he says rule 613 or rule 615. Those aren't New York state rules.

1:42:21 Thomas: That's not a good sign. Oh,

1:42:23 Liz: Those are not that I have No idea what his that's

1:42:24 Thomas: That's Not a Good Sign. Buddy, if Liz doesn't know what rule you're citing, that is not a good sign, I'm just going to say.

1:42:31 Liz: Not. I guess those must be the federal rules.

1:42:34 Thomas: Do you ever just make one up? Do you ever just for fun? Hey, rule 47 says I'm right.

1:42:35 Matt: He's doing federal.

1:42:45 Liz: What he did because there just aren't I can I know that this is not new york because that's just not how new yorg law is like there's no rule da da da there isn't like there cpl there's a criminal procedure law like cpl section dot like that would be any rule would be cpl session something these are just I have no idea what he's talking about I

1:43:04 Matt: He's definitely talking about the federal rule. I just looked it up. It's Witness's Prayer Statement, Rule 613.

1:43:07 Thomas: Federal rule. Oh.

1:43:09 Matt: So, he's working from memory.

1:43:06 Liz: Have he will that's so embarrassing could

1:43:12 Matt: Yes, that is really bad.

1:43:13 Liz: You imagine that has this completely and to not just say it's clear under that rule? Do you know where you are? Like, and there's no, there's no sort of like, I don't know, sometimes like, you know, maybe if, you know, if I'm citing case, I generally don't cite federal case law, but sometimes it can be persuasive for various reasons. It's not like considered to be a precedent, but it's not ideal. There's no like citing other federal or other state like procedural rules. That's just not a thing.

1:43:22 Thomas: All right. Also, according to Magic the Gathering law, instants resolve on the stack before sorcery. So I just want to throw that in as well. Does that help? Is that anything?

1:43:54 Matt: And this, wow, yeah.

1:43:56 Liz: It literally is the legal equivalent of citing citing magic the gathering rules that is exactly it it is as as influential as persuasive as present as magic the gathering like he's just such a dumb little oh my god like what a self -absorbed little dumb narcissist

1:44:05 Thomas: That's so funny.

1:44:06 Matt: Well, one might say a crying little shit. What mean I it is like in the process of digging himself out after having started his cross asking about a tiktok post that's so embarrassing like adult men talking about tiktak

1:44:25 Thomas: With do you know, I want to ask, Liz often just asks the question, because it's funny. Do you ever start your cross on the most important witnesses? Do you know who I am? I've never said that to anyone. I will go to my grave, never having uttered the words in that order of, do you know who I am? I'm just realizing this now. I've never thought about this before. Never in my life will I ever say that, ever. It's like, if someone doesn't know, I'm not going to try to pull the whatever with with anyone ever it's embarrassing I can't imagine thinking that's a good thing to say in this context so

1:44:28 Matt: Do you know who I am that's right that's

1:44:58 Liz: Let me and let me just tell you how I have started a cross -examination which is unfortunately, apparently the same first question that Blanche did, but my thing was, I have started with witnesses saying, um, and I have never met before. Right. And what I do to pivot there is I say, but you have met with ADA Smith over there. Right? Than once, right. Even this morning. Right! And it's to basically show that the witness is prepared. So I'll say, you and I have never met before.

1:45:25 Thomas: Wait what's the point of that oh okay well but this is not your

1:45:31 Liz: Oh yeah. No, I'm just saying, I's saying when I saw, when I first saw the beginning of Todd Blanche saying, you know I've never spoken or met before, have we? I have definitely done that with a witness, but I don't pivot it to talk about like how witness knows me. I use it to have nothing to do with me and talk about how well all the witness knows the prosecutor that prepared them so much. I'm just saying like that, that's, I like to think good lawyering that.

1:45:31 Thomas: Wit yeah

1:45:51 Matt: That's strategic that's

1:45:52 Thomas: Oh you do it in the like when bringing up magic again but a different kind you do it in like you're about to saw a lady in half on a stage you're like yeah we have never met before correct

1:45:54 Matt: Good strategy that's right that's right just a some from some of the audience naturally I you think he even considered like how that might come off to the jury of opening his cross of the most important witness with this weird personal beef he think the jury is on his side it's

1:46:05 Thomas: Did he want to lose that's what I still don't know oh so good god that's the best that's that's up there in the hall of fame of this trial for sure

1:46:18 Matt: Throwing it yeah yeah the best really enjoyed that oh for sure yeah one of the better pages all

1:46:31 Clip: Also talked on social media during this trial about President Trump, have you not? Sounds correct, yes. So, for example, on April 23rd, which is after the trial started, correct? Yes. You referred to President Trump as a dictator douchebag, didn't you? Sounds like something I said. And on that same TikTok, so again, on April 23rd, you referred to President Trump when he left the courtroom. You said that he goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs, in a fucking cage like an animal. Do you recall saying that? I recall saying it. And that was April 23nd, so during this trial, while the trial was already going on, correct? Sounds correct, yes. Yes. Now, over the past several years, let's go back to in January 2021, okay? Is it fair to say that the government, meaning the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, have repeatedly asked you to stop talking publicly about this case? They might have, yes. Well, I'm not asking you whether they might have.

1:47:40 Clip: I ask you, is it fair that the prosecutors, and maybe not the prosecutors at this table or next to me, but the prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office have repeatedly asked you to stop publicly commenting about this case, correct? Yes.

1:47:40 Liz: That's amazing. I

1:47:58 Matt: So again, the strategy, like with Stormy Daniels, of reading stuff into the record that's kind of crazy, that somebody said about President Trump, guess they just really want to make the point that he can't shut up. What's the relevance of...

1:48:09 Liz: Really don't get it. You know, sometimes I just think it's really hard for as lawyers who are just so in it to like see the forest for the trees. And I'm sure I've been one of those. And it's just like, they're obviously annoyed that he's like, Trump himself is probably annoyed that she's subject to a gag order and at the same time, Michael Cohen is just saying all this like crazy stuff on Tik TOK. Right. And so like, Like, obviously, Blanche is annoyed. Trump is annoyed, but it's not actually that helpful for the jury to bring this stuff out. Like, I don't see what it's like, OK, this guy is unhinged a little bit, but I just don't think like the way that their dictator douchebag and things like that, I think it could have just been done in a much shorter sort of fashion. You know, you commented repeatedly on this case, maybe give like some short example, example, you know, and you were told repeatedly not to do so. You were told by the Manhattan DA's office and you continue to do. So yes, just like keep it short and simple. It shouldn't have been like the very beginning. This is not like some great bombastic thing. It's like it should have been a short chapter of a cross, like somewhere in the middle.

1:49:11 Thomas: Wonder if this is I know like we know that trump was active in this defense I genuinely wander if if this came from Trump, like, because I think there's something so crazy to me that I genuinely think is true about Trump. I think he thinks people not liking him is somehow like unfair, even if they have totally legitimate reasons to not like him in the same way that like, they'll attack, Oh, a Biden judge is, is over me. But then if it's a Trump judge, it doesn't map. That's fine. That's neutral.

1:49:43 Thomas: That'S whatever a Biden. I really think that like maybe they they genuinely thought this is like some amazing bombshell. But as a juror, I think I'd be like, well, yeah, obviously he hates Trump. Like, look what happened. Look what he did. Why would that, why would that make me, I mean, yeah. Okay. I'm going to be a little bit, I guess, skeptical if it's like self -serving, but it's, like, if, you a for, like a kidnapping and the kidnapping victim is testifying, you want to be like it's true. You don't like the defendant very much do you it's like yeah well they kidnap them like why would they I like them I don't understand what this proves right yeah

1:50:19 Matt: That was the whole thing with the FBI. I remember the text was at Peter Stroke and the other one. Kept going on about that as if it's unusual for people who are investigating someone to not like the person they're investigating. I think that's actually pretty normal.

1:50:28 Thomas: Normally they love the criminals they're investigating super big fans the cartels and crap they're like I love these guys classic yeah

1:50:30 Matt: I can't get enough. But it's like signs of bias that you don't like me just because you're trying to get me for crimes. I don't know. And talking about how you don'T like me. So talking about how you don't like President Trump, we're going to go on to the excerpts that I mercifully did not collect from the podcast. We're just going to take it on his word that these things are from the broadcast instead of making you listen.

1:50:54 Clip: You've also talked about, extensively, on mea culpa, your desire to see that President Trump gets convicted in this case. Correct? Sounds like something I would say. Well, sir, I'm not asking you if it sounds like something you would say, I'm saying, did you? Have you regularly commented on your podcasts that you want president trump to be convicted in this case yes probably do you have any doubt no so why did you just answer yes probably because I don't specifically know if I use those words but yes I would like to see that and so yes you want to see president trump get convicted from this case correct I wouldlike to see accountability that's not... It's not for me. It's for the jury and for this court. I didn't ask what you wanted to see or not see about accountability. I said, do you want to see President Trump convicted in this case? That's what we just said. You're asking me if I want to say... I'm just asking you to say yes or no. Do you want President Trump to get convicted in the case? Sure.

1:52:01 Thomas: It's so good. I forgot how good this was. Oh, it's so good.

1:52:04 Matt: Why not? Yeah. And this is like the Stormy Daniels thing where it's like, yes, obviously there's a reason that you might want to see this guy convicted. You've got history. This is not news. I guess You got to establish the bias, right? I

1:52:18 Thomas: Wouldn't have thought Michael Cohen was capable of being this entertaining. I really wouldn't have. I think that that's how bad Blanche is. Like he's making Michael Cohen look amazing right now. That's hard to do.

1:52:22 Matt: That's true. The next strategy is going to be not getting him to say that he wants him convicted, but getting Cohen to say that he likes him and likes him. Trump that is. Let's see how this goes. That's

1:52:40 Clip: Now, fair to say that you admired President Trump while you were working for him. Yes, sir. You admired his financial success, his high profile, his tenacity. Very much so, yes. You've read Art of the Deal, I believe, twice. Is that correct? That is correct. And you view that as a masterpiece, correct? I view it as an excellent book, yes! Well, you've actually called it a masterpiece. Correct? Yes, masterpiece. And you saw a little bit of yourself in President Trump, correct?" Correct. Ambitious, hardworking, dealmaker, never afraid, correct? Innovative, yes. And you were actually obsessed with President Trump, weren't you? I don't know if I would characterize the word obsessed. I admired him tremendously. Well, you have characterized it as you being obsessed, haven't you ? I can't recall using that word, but I wouldn't say that that would be wrong, but I don't recall call using that word. Sorry, I interrupted you. In disloyal, you describe, you describe your feelings for President Trump as being obsessed with President Trump, with Donald J. Trump, correct? Correct. And we talked a lot about when you were working for him, but your obsession for, you admired him even before you started working for Him, correct.

1:54:06 Thomas: Already know that.

1:54:07 Clip: That's correct. And you spoke You spoke publicly on many occasions about your positive feelings for President Trump, correct? Yes, sir. You said, just for some examples, in 2015, you publicly said he was a good man. Yes. Also in 2015—this is around the time he announced he was running for president— you said that he's a man who cares deeply about this country, right? I said that.

1:54:07 Thomas: What is the point of this? Who cares?

1:54:33 Clip: That he's the man who tells it straight? Yes, Sir. Now, you also said, again, I'm still in 2015, that in your view, President Trump speaks from the heart. I've said that. And that all that he wants to do is make this country great again. You said that? Sounds right, yes. And at the time, you weren't lying, right? At the time I was knee deep into the cult of Donald Trump, yes So let me ask the question again. At that time, You weren't Lying, right I was not lying, no. That's how I felt. You've said about, for example, about President Trump's memory, that it's fantastic, and that you've never come into a situation where he's said something that's not accurate, correct? I recall saying that. This is in 2015. Just so I understand, you're not testifying that when you said that, you were lying, right? Correct. So in 2015, when you've said those things that I just went through, you are telling the truth. That's how I felt. You were telling the truth, correct? That's How I Felt. Well... I was expressing my feelings, so yes, it would be the truth.

1:55:43 Matt: A very Kierkegaardian discussion of the truth.

1:55:46 Liz: Get

1:55:47 Thomas: Think that's a valid response though. It's like you can't, you can'T trick get trick him into saying like, yes, it is the truth that he's actually a great man. That's the truth. It'S like, yeah, that's how I felt at the time.

1:55:49 Matt: It is. Right. And you're just inviting him to say the thing he said, which is that, yeah, I was knee -deep in the cult. I was in that mindset.

1:56:01 Thomas: And it also, am I crazy, but this just raises his credibility in my mind? Like, Like, I don't understand what the point is. So it's true that you, you know, used to be somebody who totally believed in this guy until the thing he did that screwed you over. That's part of this. You know, like, again, what the surprise here that I don'T understand?

1:56:06 Matt: Right, it does. Totally. I have it here that you, quote, liked him so much you wanted to marry him. Is that right? End quote.

1:56:29 Thomas: End quote, K -I -S -S I -N -G.

1:56:32 Matt: That's right. It's just, yeah, it's completely pointless. And like you said, that was my first thought too, is he just seems more credible because he's saying, yeah, I was all the way in, and now I see who he is. I was a real -life Waylon Smithers.

1:56:45 Liz: I I completely agree I I don' t really get it and I don'' t really get the use of all the examples like you said in this book you said in this vanity fair article or all the other ones that they're gonna say like it I seemed kind of weird to me like I think they can get their point across us a lot more succinctly, which is normally better. Just say, I mean, I guess if they want to like make this point that this person really liked Trump and then for reasons, you felt betrayed by Trump and, you in closing that like, lying because he used to really like Trump and Trump didn't like him back. And, you he know, got in some criminal trouble or something. But just like, Like, you know, just, I don't know. I just, I don'T really get all the buildup.

1:57:23 Thomas: Fairness, I think he could be driving to a final question of, well, if you love him so much, why don't you marry him? That be

1:57:29 Matt: Yeah, exactly. That's where it's heading.

1:57:30 Liz: That's true. The case closed. Yeah.

1:57:32 Thomas: A real gotcha.

1:57:35 Matt: Well, we are going to hear the next clip. As you mentioned, the Vanity Fair profile. I just wanted to note, since it doesn't come up in the testimony, I looked it up. The Vanity Fair profile is called, Michael Cohen would take a bullet for Donald Trump. Let's hear about that.

1:57:46 Clip: Do you recall a Vanity Fair profile that was done in September of 2017? I do. And do you remember saying, and that was an article that you participated in, right? Written by Emily Jane Fox. And you said that you were the guy that stops the leaks, talking about who you were as it relates to President Trump, correct ? Correct. And you said that you were the guy who protects the president and the family, right? I believe so. Excuse me? I believe. So, yes. And you also said at that point that you would take a bullet for the president. I did say that. Yes. You also talked about at that time. And again, this is September 2017. You said that towards the end of the campaign that you are offered book deals, correct? I was offered a book deal. Yes. So you were offered. I believe you said you were offered $10 million to write a tell -all book. Is that right? I believe so, yes. And you said that what you said in the article is that your counteroffer was, how about $100 million, correct? Correct. According to the article at the time, there was no number that worked for you, right? That's correct. You were just pushing them to see how high they would go in a book offer, right ? No, that's not true. No. I wasn't trying to fight with you there. You were just going back at them to say there's no number in the world that you would agree to to write a book about President Trump. Correct. And again, when you said that, that was true. You had no intention of writing a book? I had no attention of writing the book. At that time, in 2017? At that that time. And you also said, not only about President President Trump, but there was no money in the world that would cause you to write about his family, correct? Sounds correct, yes. You said there's no money IN THE WORLD that could get you to disclose anything about the family, right? Okay. You described them at the time, in 2017, talking about the family as a surrogate family of yours, correct. Correct. Correct.

1:59:53 Matt: Okay. So again, I don't know really what the point of all this is, but I want to point out that if you're just trying to show that Michael Cohen is disloyal by coming in and testifying now, he's way ahead of you. He's already written a book called Disloyal. So we're good. Not necessary.

2:00:07 Liz: Yeah. No one's saying that he's getting paid to do this. So.

2:00:10 Thomas: At a certain point, I'd be like, Your Honor, we can stipulate that he likes Trump a lot. You know, like how much of this?

2:00:16 Matt: Yeah. And that he was very loyal and now he's not. Now we're going to go to a more about the testimony in front of Congress.

2:00:22 Clip: So, for example, you testified in front of Congress on that day that you were very proud to have served Donald Trump for all those years and that you would continue to support him. That wasn't a lie, that was true? That was true. Then, we'll come back to this in a little bit. In 2018, in April, the FBI raided your home office, safe deposit box, and the hotel room you were staying in, correct? That's correct. Correct. After that time, you had one conversation on the phone shortly thereafter with President Trump, correct? Yes. The day after. Now, a few weeks later, so April 26 of that same year of 2018, do you recall saying on the phone that you really missed the boss? You said, boss, I miss you so much. I wish I was down there with you. It's really hard for me not to be there. Do you remember that? I don't recall that. If we can show you and see if we can refresh your recollection, if we can look at B66 just for the witness, the parties, and the court, it's an article. Take a look at that and see it refreshes your recollections. Does that article refresh your collection that you said that? No, uh, what it states is that according to this person, I don't know who the person is, and I don t recall specifically saying that. Fair enough.

2:01:49 Matt: I mean, I wouldn't admit to saying that either. Even with everything else he's said, that's so cringey.

2:01:52 Thomas: Mr. Cohen, can you admit to sending one of those lined paper notes through class saying, do you want to go out with me, circle yes or no, to Mr. Trump at the time? I don't, yeah, it's so much. It's so many times. It's too much for nothing.

2:02:07 Matt: Boss, I miss you so much. It's so sad.

2:02:11 Liz: It's, right? It's like, um, that's what you're going to nail him on?

2:02:15 Matt: Your best defense here is you're actually talking to Bruce Springsteen. All right, we on the Kierkegaardian nature of truth coming up here.

2:02:22 Liz: Dying. So

2:02:23 Clip: Now, they also asked you about the Trump Moscow project, and you lied to them, right? Yes. The information I gave was not accurate. So is not accurate information a lie? Sure. I don't - It's not, I mean - Is it a lie. It was inaccurate, yes. So was it a LIE? I don t know if I would characterize it as a lie, it was inaccurate. So, in your mind, if something is inaccurate, but it's not a lie, how are you distinguishing that in your head? It wasn't truthful? Yes. You want to call it a lie? I'll call it lie. It's inaccurate. I'm asking you to testify. I believe they're the same thing. Pardon? I believe that they're same thing, I believe the information I gave them was inaccurate. But you're not testifying today that that information was a lie. Sure, I'll say it's a lie... Well...

2:03:15 Thomas: Weird.

2:03:15 Clip: I'll say it's a lie. I'm just asking questions, Mr. Cohen. No problem, and I'm trying to give you the answer. Okay, fair enough.

2:03:27 Liz: Dumb. This is so dumb. He got what he wanted. The very beginning of the clip. Now, question. Now they also asked you about the Moscow project you lied to them. Right. Answer. Yes. The information I gave was not accurate. You got him to say he lied. He said, and you lie to them, right? Yes. Done. You don't need to go back and forth with him being like, oh, you didn't spit back the word lie to me. Like he said it like it just it's so stupid this back and forth is so stupid and it doesn't help it him and it just looks I don't know that

2:03:44 Thomas: Close enough. Yeah. I was just expecting, I mean, there is a difference between inaccurate information and a lie. It's like intent. Like, did you, I don't know if that's what he was, I from context, that's not what Cohen's trying to argue, but it's still like, I Don't, what is the point of all this? I don'T, I DON'T understand.

2:04:14 Matt: And he's already admitted to lying to Congress about this exact thing. He's already got a conviction for doing this. What he's trying to say is you also lie to the prosecutors, but who cares?

2:04:23 Liz: don'T get but as I say I just DON'T get because he says you know he basically said in the first question you lied to them right yes he answers yes and then he says the information I gave is not accurate but he doesn'T say no I didn'T lie to them but I gave inaccurate information he's actually giving him the answer that's what I'M trying to say is that like he gave him what he wanted in in closing Supposing, you couldn't should absolutely say he admitted that he lied to you about the Trump Moscow project. That's completely fair. Instead, they have this, you page back and forth. I'll say it's a lot like it's so stupid. Anyway.

2:04:37 Thomas: This whole fight is based on nothing. Yeah.

2:04:52 Matt: Now for reasons unexplained, we're going to have a cameo from a beloved Trump world figure.

2:04:56 Clip: And you were very much looking, in the fall of 2019, for a way to get your sentence reduced, correct? Yes, sir. And you had visitors who came to see you? Yes. Do you know someone named Anthony Scaramucci? I do. Did he come to visit you in October of 2019? He came to visit, I don't know exactly when. And he commented and said that you were trying to figure out a way to get out of prison early, right? You talked to him about that, right? Sounds correct.

2:05:11 Thomas: Yeah

2:05:14 Liz: Mooch.

2:05:28 Matt: Really want to know more. Like, that's it. That's all we get. And there's a break. We never find out what Scaramucci told him.

2:05:29 Thomas: That was weird huh we'll

2:05:33 Matt: So, yeah. Just seems like its own little episode there of the Mooch coming to visit. This must have been in like the three days he was actually working for Trump. I don't know but all again sparing you the podcast clips and just talking about the podcast I

2:05:34 Thomas: Never know yeah keep

2:05:43 Liz: Approach.

2:05:47 Clip: Now, right around that time, you also launched your podcast that you talked about, Mea Culpa? Correct. Now you, on your podcast that started September 14th, 2020, does that sound right? Sounds correct. On your first In your first podcast, Mea Culpa, you referred to President Trump as a boorish cartoon misogynist, didn't you? It sounds like something I would say. And those types of comments and names continued on, every single one, throughout 2020, correct? I'm sure I said something. I can't say that they are all... You recall the first one in 2020 as a Cheeto -dusted cartoon villain? That also sounds like Something I Said. Now, do you recall around that same time, October of 2020, you started talking about your hope that President Trump would be convicted of a crime, correct? I don't know if those are the exact words that I said, but the sentiment is correct. You think you might have said, I truly fucking hope that this man ends up in prison. Is that exact? It sounds like my language on mea culpa. What you just heard is a portion of your podcast, Mea Culpa, from October 3, 2020, correct? Correct. You also said in the same podcast, did you not, that President Trump needs to wear handcuffs and to do the perp walk. People will not be satisfied until this man is sitting inside the cell. Do you recall saying that? I don't recall saying dat, but I wouldn't put it past me. By the way, as of October 22nd, 2021, which is about a year after you had started your podcast, you started in early September 2020. Now we're talking about October of 2021. Your podcast had topped 10 million downloads. Does that sound right? I think it was more, but yes. You said you think it Was more. The average was around 300 ,000 a week. Is that right? Something

2:07:42 Clip: Like that. Yes. I'm sorry? Something like that. And you make money off the podcast, correct? Yes, sir. And then, by the way, is it fair to say that you are motivated by fame? No, sir, I don't think it's fair to saying. Is it fair that you're motivated by the fame of the podcast? Is it unfair to say you are motivation by publicity? I don' t know if that's fair. I am motivated by many things. So do you recall saying in Disloyal, which is a book that you published the year before, we're talking about now September of 2020, you published that book, right? I did, yes. Do you recall saying that you had wealth, but that you wanted power, the good life, public acclaim, big deals, fast cars, private planes, the excesses, and the glamour and zest for life? Do you remember saying that? Yes, sir. So is that what motivates you, what I just read? Yes, those are my words. You also, correct me if I'm wrong, loved being on CNN, MSNBC, even Fox TV. When I was speaking on behalf of Mr. Trump. Well, let's do both. Did you love it when you were speaking on behalf of President Trump? Yes,

2:07:41 Thomas: Christ did

2:08:48 Clip: Sir. Do you love It Now? Less, but yes, still do. So, the answer is yes, you love I, although just less now than you used to. Yes.

2:08:49 Thomas: You love it you just love it so

2:09:01 Matt: Doing this I I do have to say that I really appreciate that they made him put on headphones and listen to like several minutes of his own podcast that's like a court sentence that's that's like punishment uh what

2:09:01 Thomas: Weird yeah yeah do you love it do you just love it that's so weird right

2:09:15 Matt: Are we doing well

2:09:16 Liz: I think he did a very good job of the things that he wanted to do, which is, I think, I mean, we talked about this with Stormi, right? Where I think there is a really good point with Stormy that she made a lot of, she made money from, you know, her tour and that sort of thing. But Nicholas kind of messed it up a little bit and just wasn't as clear. And I think similarly earlier here, you know, I think they could have made really good points. Like you've gotten actually since, your relationship ended with Mr. Trump, um know you've created this podcast and this podcast has a lot of listeners and there's advertisements and you get this and you know it's your income is you know maybe do some research and figuring out his income. Just like get all of those points out there. But look don't ask weird questions like Like, is it fair to say you're motivated by fame? Like, he's not going to give you, he'S not going to say yes. Like, it gives him an opportunity to explain as far as you're motivate by publicity. He'S not gonna say, yeah, I don't know. I just, I found this to be really discombobulated. I didn't think that there, I think really think that he did any good job of kind of like cornering him or using his own words against him. And I think he didn'T really establish, I think he could have done more work to work to establish that he has gotten incredibly famous mess and made a lot of money and and has a you cottage cheese off of hating on Donald Trump yeah

2:10:30 Matt: Actually now that you said that you reminded me with the stormy daniels testimony there was that bit where nicholas kept asking her about one of your crowds are different now you're getting all these young like you know queer resistance people this would have been the time to ask that because he he flipped for the purpose of getting this gigantic audience of 300 000 downloads a week or whatever it is uh and it worked the resistance apparently loves michael Cohen now, and he's on the Midas Touch network. So that's a valid line of questioning. He doesn't touch it.

2:10:43 Liz: -hmm that's it yeah absolutely yeah no right it's not weird it's

2:10:56 Thomas: Let's I just keep thinking like did you not know that this was coming trump team like did you not know that you're gonna do cross on the obvious one witness that matters the most is they not prepped I don't get it I really don't get it.

2:11:10 Matt: They talked it out at lunch or something. It seems like that's about it. Right. Well, we got one more quick quick line here where he's going to respond directly to Hope Hicks. I'm not sure that he knows he's doing that, but I just thought it was a kind of funny callback to the Hope Hick joke.

2:11:22 Clip: Now, in that book, you call yourself a fixer, right? I probably referenced it, yes. But when you think of yourself as As a fixer, are you fixing things that you broke? No, sir.

2:11:37 Matt: I just like that. You remember the Hope X joke, of course.

2:11:40 Matt: That's the kind of fixer he is. Well, that's That's pretty much the end of the cross for today. There's going to be a lot more tomorrow. Have we learned?

2:11:45 Thomas: That's right. Fantastic.

2:11:45 Matt: I guess not much about cross. I don't think we've learned.

2:11:46 Thomas: I want to listen to that first exchange again, like the whole objections and everything. Like, I just want to hear, like, it's so good.

2:11:54 Matt: Needs a remix or something. Yeah. A dance mix.

2:11:56 Thomas: Why are you making this about yourself?

2:11:57 Liz: I I just like I why are you making this about yourself like I just would actually love to have listened to merchant say that because it's just yeah I

2:12:07 Thomas: Amazing.

2:12:08 Matt: I imagine he's genuinely confused. Like, what are you doing? Right in front of me. Like, yeah.

2:12:12 Liz: I really think like he genuinely meant like this is probably not how you should start a cross -examination like Like, why are you making this about yourself?

2:12:20 Matt: I'm not making about myself. I'm just asking about TikTok and things he said about me. It's just.

2:12:23 Thomas: I'm just asking a bunch of questions related to how I feel.

2:12:25 Liz: And yeah, and rule 613 says I absolutely can ask about bias. Like, okay. Yeah.

2:12:32 Matt: Well and Cohen is a good witness again like he's doing his job coming off well yeah

2:12:35 Thomas: He really just yeah just testified circles around this clown so

2:12:42 Matt: That's uh that's the end of May 14th at least a day's worth yeah yeah all

2:12:45 Thomas: There's more cross oh can't wait I wonder if it's as stupid as this one well thanks so much matt and thanks so much liz as always uh was a ton of fun and thanks to uh eli bosnick again for being michael Cohen. Much fun, and I can't wait till next time, folks.

2:13:06 Liz: You. Everyone.

2:13:08 Clip: Nothing further, your honor. You might as well say that one. Okay. Not like that. Say it like that, do that.

2:13:14 Matt: I guess we can just imagine the invoice. I'm sure it looks like an invoice. I just wanted to look at it. I just have to use my imagination.