Home » As it dawns on Anderson Cooper that Michael Cohen might not be the most reliable witness in the world

Comments

As it dawns on Anderson Cooper that Michael Cohen might not be the most reliable witness in the world — 24 Comments

  1. The whole prosecution is unbelievable, and apparently they are waiting for their summation to define what crime they claim was committed. None has been demonstrated so far.

  2. If I were Trump, I would bring a huge ham sandwich to the table when the prosecution makes their summation.

  3. To any Dems or Never-Trumpers out there who are upset about this, I suggest you merely tune into NPR tomorrow morning and it will be all gone, as if it never happened.

  4. Given that a Manhattan jury took E. Jean Carroll seriously, the smart money is on a conviction. And consider the implications of that. A randomly selected crew of street-level Democrats is pleased to participate in these frauds. Those are your neighbors. Those are your relatives.

  5. One thing you should remember about Anderson Cooper is that he’s been a working journalist for > 30 years and his prominence antedated Jeff Zucker’s rule at CNN and Ted Turner’s departure from the network. And, you’ll recall that the likes of Mary Mapes antedate him and Dan Rather antedated her. Glenn Reynolds’ caustic description of the media in our time is ‘garbage people paid to lie for the Democratic Party’. Well, you had a mess of the willing a generation ago.

  6. Reliability aside, did Cohen even testify to facts that, if true, would establish the crime? If Trump is being prosecuted for falsifying business records with fraudulent intent, the prosecution has to prove both the false business records and the fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if you believe every word that Cohen says, has the prosecution put up evidence establishing those elements with respect to Trump? Jonathan Turley says no.

    https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/15/did-michael-cohen-commit-perjury-in-the-trump-trial/

  7. I don’t think things like reasonable doubt even come into play here. They will present their crime and the jury will quickly and happily vote guilty to whatever that crime is and then (if and when the opportunity arises) even more happily vote for the maximum accompanying prison sentence that can be attached to it. Biden’s handlers won’t have to worry about a debate, because Haley won’t pressure him to engage in one with her.

  8. The jury will find Trump guilty because they all hate him. They will ignore the fact that no crime was committed and ignore that the star witness, Cohen, is a pathological liar.
    Oh, and the judge hates Trump as well.

    Trump being tried in Manhattan is like a black guy being tried in the deep south in 1920 for a crime he did not commit, where the jury, judge and prosecutor all members of the KKK.

    By the way, check out the latest imbroglio involving women during a US House committee hearing involving Greene, AOC and some other female rep.
    It literally sounds like an episode of “The View,” when they have that rare guest on their show who is not in accord with their prevailing far left, progressive, DEI horse crap.

    Greene is the female equivalent of Trump, she calls it like she sees it and does not care who she pisses off.
    Good on her.

  9. When the prosecutions best witnesses against Trump are an over the hill porn star, whose story continually changes, and a lawyer disbarred for perjury and extortion, you know the democrats are desperate.

  10. Listened to NPR this morning for coverage of Cohen cross-examination. As I predicted above, I heard… nothing. Thank God for that Gaza pier, eh?!

  11. remember how they went all in for avenatti, they were even touting him from President, what were they smoking over there,

    I think he stole 4 million dollars from his clients, including a quadraplegic

    if a story sounds too good to be true, it probably is,

  12. So Biden will refuse to debate a convicted felon, thereby making this entire farcical trial worthwhile

  13. I was entertained last night by watching the summation of the Cohen cross on a few news/opinion shows. Apparently there are two trials going on that involve a person named Cohen. A few networks opined that the defense attorney gutted Cohen’s testimony and may have earned his client a directed verdict or even an acquittal. A few others thought Cohen held up well and the case is still headed to a guilty verdict.
    Unfortunately the trial is held away from cameras, so the average, interested citizen can only go by what the talking heads are saying and you choose which talking heads you hear using your tv’s remote control. I would have thought a trial of such importance would be held in the open, cameras running so the average citizen can decide for themselves. But I would have been wrong.

  14. You’d think after so many years they wouldn’t be surprised. But for Wales Rich!

  15. Kate:

    What a quaint idea! Having to prove a crime was committed in order to get a conviction. Yes, yes. Crime before conviction! How old school.

  16. Yes, I think, if I was a juror in this case, watching that, I would think this guy’s making this up as he’s going along

    Is Anderson Cooper oblivious to the caliber of this jury? They’re thinking no such thing – that would be actually ‘trying’ a case. Their job is to railroad Donald Trump, period, and they know they were chosen for it.

  17. Cooper’s comments are interesting only in that they showing signs of what’s going on behind the scenes. Ditto the handful of other press people and open Democrats who are saying stuff like this.

    Behind the scenes, the Dems are nervous. Biden’s numbers keep slipping in key swing states, and the demographics he needs to win to change that tend to want opposite policies. Biden himself has lost whatever charisma or ‘oomph’ he once had, in terms of PR. But he would be very hard to get rid of without tearing the party apart, the more so because removing Biden while leaving Harris in place would just make the issue worse.

    I partly think this is Cooper sending a warning to Dems that they can’t count on the lawfare to work. Even a conviction (which remains highly likely in that court) wouldn’t necessarily help and might well backfire politically. More and more Dems are saying stuff that hints at that because they’re getting nervous.

  18. I think there is a non-zero chance of a hung jury. Two jurors are lawyers. It’s hard to believe they would agree with ignoring the facts and the law.

  19. Mike K:

    Alvin Bragg is a lawyer. Fani Willis is a lawyer. Laurence Tribe is a lawyer. Michael Cohen is a lawyer.

    You get my drift.

  20. And Jack Smith is also a lawyer and so are the judges presiding over the Stalinist show trials of Trump.

    While on this topic, Roland Freisler and Andrey Vyshinsky were both lawyers too.

    The more educated and intelligent one is, the easier it is to justify taking on the most radical and extreme views.

  21. “It’s hard to believe they would agree with ignoring the facts and the law.”
    They might be affirmative action lawyers to whom the facts and the law don’t matter.

  22. weren’t lawyers the second highest cohort of nazis, after medical personnel,

    of course there is the late wandering coma, who never practiced law, going far on the way back machine there was robespierre, and the rest of his crew,

  23. miguel cervantes:

    See this:

    While it is true that lawyers were represented among National Socialist elites in the NDB (37.5 per cent; see Table 8), it has not been found that this representation was in any way disproportionate in relation to other political groups. This means that other political groups, such as democratic movements, had similar or even higher shares of lawyers amongst their elites. A problem in assessing the academic background of Nazi leaders was that Herbert and Wildt did not use any comparative data against other political groupings.66 Law and humanities were most popular among all political elites regardless of their ideological stance. However, in relative terms, Nazi elites in the NDB sample were more likely than other political activists to be scientists or doctors. …

    In this context, the article revealed a stark sociological contrast between Nazi politicians in the Reichstag and political elites outside the parliament in what may be called Germany’s “public sphere”. It has been shown that National Socialist elites and leaders in the NDB sample predominantly stemmed from the bourgeoisie and were university educated. This conclusion stands in sharp contrast to a large body of traditional hypotheses that assumed that Nazi leaders typically were lower middleclass men or came from the fringes of German society. In the light of the evidence that Nazism attracted large numbers of university-educated and intellectual elites, such clichés should be regarded as excuses rather than explanations as they reveal the unwillingness of the German Bildungsbürgertum to accept its historical role and responsibility. The fascist is not “the other”, was not imposed from “outside”, but rather from within the intellectual, social and economic core of the German bourgeoisie. While the spread of National Socialism certainly was catalyzed by the economic crises of the interwar period, its social formation process was also deeply entwined with the cultural history of German upper classes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>