Tangle - An update on Trump's hush money trial.

Episode Date: May 15, 2024

The latest in Donald Trump’s New York trial. This week, Trump's one-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified in the former president’s trial for allegedly falsifying business records, commonly referred to as the "hush money" case. Cohen’s testimony comes a week after adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, took the stand to describe her alleged relationship with Trump. Cohen and Daniels are key witnesses for the prosecution, which is claiming that Trump falsified records of payments to suppress incriminating personal information during the 2016 presidential campaign.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can watch our latest video, Isaac's interview with former Congressman Ken Buck (CO-04) ⁠here⁠.Check the next episode of our new podcast series, The Undecideds. In episode 3, our focus shifts from Donald Trump toward President Joe Biden. Much has been made in the media about his age and memory and whether he’s cognitively capable of handling another term. But an unanticipated performance at the State of the Union reignited his base and left many questioning that narrative. And while Donald Trump faces a jury of his peers in court, the court of public opinion continues to weigh in on the effectiveness of Biden’s foreign policies, with an eye to the conflicts between Israel and Palestine, Ukraine and Russia, and our own protracted clash at our southern border.  Our undecided voters share their observations on the current commander in chief and how his decisions on the world stage affect their decision in the voting booth. You can listen to Episode 3 ⁠⁠here.⁠⁠Today’s clickables: Talking independent media (0:53), Quick hits (1:58), Today’s story (3:47), Left’s take (6:55), Right’s take (10:24), Isaac’s take (14:08), Under the Radar (20:31), Numbers (21:28), Have a nice day (22:28)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Do you think Trump will get a guilty verdict? Let us know!Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Dude morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about former President Donald Trump and his New York City trial, the Manhattan case around all the hush money stuff. Going to break down some of my relatively strong feelings about this, relatively strong feelings about this and also share some arguments from the right and the left about what has happened in the case as we always do. Before we jump in, a quick heads up. Tomorrow, around 12 noon, I'm going to be doing a public webinar hosted by Jane Friedman, the writer and

the founder of the newsletter Electric Speed. We're going to be chatting about the business side of Tangle, how we've built this fully independent media company, and some of our strategies for bringing people together of all political persuasions. If you're interested in learning a bit more about what goes on behind the scenes at Tangle, feel free to join us. The webinar is free. There is a registration link in today's episode description. Also, a quick heads up that our podcast went a little long today, so I am not going to be doing a reader question. We're just going to be focusing on this Trump case. And as always, we'll have our normal quick hits and under the radar story and all that good stuff. But no listener reader question today. But keep an eye

out for some more of that tomorrow and later this week. And with that out of the way, we'll toss it to John and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up in Maryland, former Governor Larry Hogan won the Republican nomination for Senate. In West Virginia, former Governor Jim Justice also won his Senate primary. Number two, Secretary of State Tony Blinken arrived in Kiev as new U.S. military aid began arriving in Ukraine. Number three, President Biden and former President Trump have agreed to two debates before the election, with the first being held in June. Number four, pro-Palestinian protesters at Harvard

disbanded after saying they came to an agreement with the university. And number five, a preliminary report from the National Transportation Safety Board said the cargo vessel that crashed into Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge had lost power four times in the 12 hours before the crash. We begin with Donald Trump's criminal trial. His former lawyer, Michael Cohen, faced cross-examination yesterday where the defense attacked his credibility after Cohen directly tied Trump to the falsified documents that issue in the case. This morning signs Donald Trump's criminal trial is coming to a close after his defense team took a sprawling first crack at Michael Cohen. Mr. Trump's lead attorney offering jurors a grab bag of reasons to question Cohen's

motives from money, fame and media attention to jealousy and a lighter prison sentence, all an attempt to argue Cohen, the only witness who directly ties the former president to the prosecution's charges, can't be trusted. Several political allies of former President Donald Trump attended his criminal hush money trial in Manhattan today. That includes several members of Congress and some of his former rivals for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. This week, Trump's one-time personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified in the former president's trial for allegedly falsifying business records, commonly referred to as the Hush Money case. Cohen's testimony comes a week after adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy

Daniels, took the stand to describe her alleged relationship with Trump. Cohen and Daniels are key witnesses for the prosecution, which is claiming that Trump falsified records of payments to suppress incriminating personal information during the 2016 presidential campaign. A quick reminder, the case is founded on Cohen's claim that Trump directed him to pay Daniels $130,000 in 2016 to keep quiet about their sexual encounter

from roughly 10 years earlier. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, lying to Congress, and tax evasion, and served three years in prison. Cohen also claimed he paid the publisher of the tabloid National Enquirer to kill a story about an affair between Trump and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump denies any sexual relationship with either women. Last week, Daniels testified over multiple days about her encounter with Trump in 2006 when she claimed they engaged in a sexual relationship. Although Daniels said

the relationship was consensual, she also said there was a power imbalance between them. During cross-examination, Trump's lawyers pressed Daniels about whether she fabricated the story to extort Trump as he rose to political prominence and if she knew whether Trump directly orchestrated her payments. Daniel's presence on the stand drew the ire of Trump's team, who moved for a mistrial midway through her testimony. Defense lawyer Todd Blanch told the judge, Juan Marchand, that Daniel's testimony had nothing to do with the case and would unfairly prejudice the jury. Marchand rejected the request, though he said some of the details she shared were excessive. On Monday, Cohen took

the stand and testified that Trump viewed Daniel's story as a total disaster during his 2016 campaign and told Cohen to just take care of it. Cohen also claimed he met with Trump and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg in 2017 to discuss his reimbursement for facilitating the payment. During Cohen's testimony, prosecutors presented a series of invoices and checks Trump signed to pay Cohen for his legal fees, which Cohen said were fraudulent, as he had not done any work for Trump at that time. Additionally, after federal agents executed search warrants at Cohen's hotel, home, and office in 2018,

Cohen claimed that Trump assured him he would be protected if he remained loyal. He said to me, don't worry, I'm the president of the United States. Everything's going to be okay. Stay tough, Cohen said. Convincing the jury of Cohen's credibility is a pivotal challenge for the prosecution. On the stand, Cohen spoke openly about past transgressions, acknowledging that he has previously lied under oath, including to Congress. Cohen is the prosecution's final witness, so once the defense concludes its

cross-examination, they may present their case to the court. On Tuesday, Trump's lawyers told Judge Marchand that Trump may testify when they present their case. Today, we'll explore arguments from the left and the right about the latest in the trial, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. All right, first we're going to start with what the left is saying. The left thinks Conan Daniels delivered strong and convincing testimony. Some question whether the prosecution has done enough to prove Trump's guilt. Others say Daniels' testimony presents real problems for Trump's defense.

In MSNBC, Dennis Aftergut argued the Trump jury needed to hear from Michael Cohen, and so far, he's delivered. The prosecution was laser-focused on pre-binding one of Trump's anticipated defenses, that even if he was part of a scheme to falsify business records, he had no intent to deceive voters or violate election laws, a key element of the prosecution's case to elevate the charged crime from a misdemeanor to a felony, Aftergut said. Trump's defense is further undercut by other evidence about the timing of the payoff. Daniels testified last week that Trump and Cohen's interest in buying her story came right after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced. and buying her story came right after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced. Given the blistering cross-examination to come,

jurors are not likely to take Cohen's word alone that Trump was behind the payoff. But there is plenty of corroboration, Aftercut wrote. Cohen left jurors with detail and color that they will not forget when Trump's lawyers argue, contradictorily, that the former president was not part of any scheme to pay off Daniels and that, even if he was, he did not intend to violate election law. When Cohen takes his turn being cross-examined, In The Guardian, Margaret Sullivan said, Trump's hush money cases proved he's a lowlife. Can it prove he's a criminal? Against the odds, Cohen's testimony does ring true. What's more, much of it has been pre-corroborated by testimony and evidence earlier in the trial, Sullivan wrote.

Will a jury decide that Trump's behavior amounted to criminal election interference? That'll require a lot of connecting the dots. That Stormy Daniels was not only paid off to keep quiet about the time she claims to have had sex with Trump, but that the payment was then recorded falsely in a way that violates campaign finance law. If those dots are going to be connected, it's Cohen who must connect them. Can jurors find him credible given his checkered past? Even if they do, is it possible to make the leap to criminal violations of campaign finance law? And could every one of them then agree to convict? That's an Everest high mountain to climb, Sullivan said. As for a jury then connecting that credibility to criminal election law interference, and then unanimously deciding to convict the former president, that's a big stretch.

In the Los Angeles Times, Harry Lipman wrote, Did Stormy Daniels' testimony help or hurt the case against Trump? It's complicated. Daniels' testimony posed a problem by suggesting her alleged encounter with Trump was in some sense coercive. Although she testified repeatedly that she was not forced to have sex with the defendant, she also noted his greater physical size, the unbalanced power dynamic between them, and her care to keep their subsequent encounters public, Lippman said. At the same time, Daniel's cross-examination by Trump lawyer Susan Necklace had its own

problems and may have increased the jury's sympathy for the witness. A number of analysts suggest the district attorney would have been better off not calling her at all. What that analysis overlooks, however, is the jury's natural desire to take the measure of the woman who propelled the crisis and about whom they had heard so much, Lipman wrote. From Trump's vantage point, the risks are keener. That is, in large part because his vanity and arrogance have forced his lawyers to commit an unnecessary insistence that he had never had sex with Daniels. Consequently, if the jury credits the basics of her story, it discredits Trump. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right says the prosecution's cases failed to show evidence of a crime.

Some doubt the decision to put Cohen on the stand given his past transgressions. Others say Daniel's testimony was solely intended to embarrass Trump. In The Hill, Andrew and Katie Sierkowski asked, where's the crime? The New York case against Donald Trump is drawing to a close, and Trump may have done exactly what the prosecutors claim, but one critical aspect seems to be missing. Where's the crime? If the prosecution plans to rely upon Michael Cohen's plea deal to a campaign finance violation to convict Donald Trump, they've severely miscalculated, Sierkowski and Sierkowski wrote. They've severely miscalculated, Cherkasky and Cherkasky wrote.

As the state's case draws to a close, it seems all but certain that the other crime they allege Trump tried to conceal is Cohen's alleged campaign finance violation. If the prosecution's theory relies upon Cohen's plea to this offense, their case is dead in the water. No matter what Cohen says about the alleged conversations and agreements he made with the former president,

one still can't conspire to not break the law, they said. At this rate, even conflicted Judge Marchand may be forced to grant the defense's motion for a directed verdict of not guilty if the prosecution rests on the testimony of convicted fraudster Michael Cohen, who, oddly enough, may have been the victim of an overzealous prosecutor himself. himself. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada,

which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca. In Fox News, Greg Jarrett said,

Cohen's lies, lies, and more lies could sink D.A. Bragg's case. Cohen presents a contradiction about truth and falsity. In philosophy and logic, it's known as the liar's paradox, and it bedevils juries whenever habitual liars take the witness stand and promise to tell the truth. The paradox is this. If a liar indeed lied, then his admission of his lies is truthful. Unless, of course, he's lying about the lie and everything else. You can never really know, Jarrett wrote.

It was on full display Monday when Trump's one-time self-proclaimed fixer failed to connect the accused to any cognizable crime. Cohen later testified that Trump was concerned about how Daniel's story might impact his 2016 electoral chances. Not surprisingly, that nugget is contradicted by other witnesses who informed the jury that the candidate's main concern was his wife and family. Either way, it doesn't matter. Bragg's argument is legally flawed because Trump used his own money, not campaign funds. The law imposes limits on the latter, but not the former, Jarrett said. Bragg knows that he is teetering dangerously close to suborning perjury, but he is wholly committed to convicting Donald Trump

for crimes not committed or fully revealed. In National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy wrote that Daniel's testimony shows Trump's humiliation is the point of Bragg's prosecution. The point of the trial is to bruise Donald Trump politically, to humiliate him with a tawdry sexual episode from nearly 20 years ago that is utterly unnecessary to prove the charges in the indictment, McCarthy said. Just to remind you, the allegation in the indictment is that Trump fraudulently caused his business records to be falsified 11 years after this encounter. The encounter makes no difference to the proof of the charges. The encounter makes no difference to the proof of the charges. It could not be more patent that Bragg is spotlighting the long-ago extramarital tryst by his party's main opponent in the upcoming election to profoundly embarrass him, McCarthy added.

Were Trump to testify, he'd have to address it. The did-it-happen issue, even though extraneous, prevents Trump from giving testimony narrowly tailored to the charges. If the jurors believe Stormy's version and concluded Trump was lying, they could convict Trump even though the question of whether it happened is irrelevant to the charges. If the jurors believe Stormy's version and concluded Trump was lying, they could convict Trump even though the question of whether it happened is irrelevant to the actual charges in the indictment. That could be yet another reason for Trump to opt out of testifying. All right, now let's send it back to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for what the right and the left are saying, which brings us to my take. So I'm trying to articulate a very weird element of this trial in a simple way,

but I think the best I can come up with is this. Everyone in this case is just so seedy and inconsistent and dishonest and partisan and self-interested that it's hard to feel like justice will be served regardless of the outcome. I'm not just talking about Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, as some readers might think. Yes, both have a long history of orchestrating shady deals and lying to the public. But I'm also talking about Stormy Daniels, Judge Juan Merchan, the press covering this case, the prosecutors bringing the case, I mean literally everyone. And at the same time, I have a hard time caring about this case when the defendant, Donald Trump, is a former president also facing far more serious charges for attempting to overthrow an election and stealing sensitive classified documents. I just don't care if he paid off Daniels or committed some misdemeanor

fraud to cover up the payment eight years ago, or even if he had the affair in the first place, which was 18 years ago, by the way. This is the least important or relevant of all the cases against Trump, and yet it looks like it's the only one that will actually conclude before the November election. Here's another element of the trial I find weird and difficult to articulate. Determining whether Trump did the things he is accused of is not the same as convicting him of a crime. Whether Trump had a sexual relationship with Daniels and then paid off Michael Cohen to help keep it quiet is foundational to the prosecution's case. Daniels and then paid off Michael Cohen to help keep it quiet is foundational to the prosecution's case. Yet, proving Trump falsified business records to cover up the payments and had intent to commit a felony is necessary for the prosecution to prove criminality. First, and at the most basic

level, proving that Trump is an indecent enough person to have the affair and orchestrate its payoff is key to the prosecution's case. And that's what I think is both easiest for them and most damning for Trump. Most of the evidence points to Trump doing the things he is accused of. Key elements of these accusations have already been corroborated in court and by the press. Trump literally admitted that he reimbursed Cohen for the payments to Daniels in 2018, though we all seem to have memory hold that. The paper trail is so obvious, it's actually kind of amusing. We also know Trump has participated in similar schemes in the past, as recordings Cohen secretly made of himself and his boss discussing a similar scheme related to Playboy model Karen McDougal were played in court. Ever since the Wall Street Journal first broke

this story in 2016, it has seemed legit. And while there's no recording or live video of the trial, making it hard to read people's tone or expression or defensiveness or personality, what I've read from press reports and testimony leads me to believe that Trump both had this affair and reimbursed Cohen to kill the story. Which brings us to the fraudulent business records. Central to the prosecution's case is their ability to paint a picture of a man who was more worried about his campaign than his wife as allegations of adultery came out in the press, and who would go to great lengths to kill such a story. And I think the prosecutors painted that picture well. Daniels gave convincing and detailed, perhaps too detailed, testimony about her alleged sexual relationship with the former president. She said things that sounded remarkably similar to testimony from both

Trump's friends and foes. For example, she testified that when she asked Trump about Melania in 2006, he told her, don't worry about that. We actually don't even sleep in the same room. Michael Cohen said when he raised the issue of Daniel's story coming to light in 2016, Michael Cohen said when he raised the issue of Daniel's story coming to light in 2016, Trump told him, don't worry, and expressed confidence he'd easily find a new partner if Melania left him. He goes, how long do you think I'll be on the market for? Not long, Cohen testified. David Pecker, Trump's longtime friend, said he didn't hear or discuss any concerns about Melania in 2016, only what the impact would be on the campaign or the election. Tim O'Brien, a biographer who has been writing about Trump for 30 years, long before he was a

president or political figure, has chimed in on this case by saying affirmatively that Trump is a quote, cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully, a racist, a predator, and a con man, end quote. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement from a man who knows him well, but it is a characterization consistent with Daniels and the exact kind of portrait the prosecution is successfully painting to jurists about Trump during this trial. And yet, this case is far from a slam dunk. In part, that's because, as I've said before, Alvin Bragg is trying to stretch the law to the point of being unrecognizable. He is introducing a new legal theory against a former president who'd be exempt from the charges if he hadn't left the state, which paused the statute of limitations. He stacked the charges

by separating alleged falsified documents into its own counts, and previous prosecutors saw the same evidence and chose not to bring these charges. Furthermore, Cohen, the star witness, is a known liar. He has lied for Trump's benefit and to hurt him. He has lied under oath in courtrooms, to investigators in private, and to the press as a means of elevating his own status. He's lied to Congress, to the IRS, to the banks. Yet now we are supposed to believe that this is the time his word is valuable? From the guy currently peddling a reality TV show about his own life? Sorry, but I'll take a hard pass on believing much of anything Cohen says. And even if you do take him at his word, Cohen didn't even confirm Trump intentionally committed fraud. He just testified that Trump knew Cohen was going to pay for the non-disclosure agreement and that the story would be killed. My beliefs about what Trump has done rest on a huge bank of evidence that has nothing to do

with the case's star witness, but that star witness will be key to convincing a jury Trump should be charged with whatever concoction of a federal quote-unquote election fraud or falsified business records crime Bragg can peg him on. These prosecutors are trying to connect a lot of sorted dots. They've certainly succeeded in making Trump and everyone else involved in the trial come off as unlikable as possible, but they've done little to prove the kind of crime they said they would. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take. As I mentioned, we are skipping today's reader question for length, so I'm going to pass it back to John for today's Under the Radar story, and I'll be back here

tomorrow. Thanks, Isaac. Next up is our Under the Radar story. Social segregation in schools across the country has been surging since 1988. Today, the share of U.S. public schools with student bodies that are more than 90% non-white is 19.8%. In 1988, it was 7.4%. The dramatic rise in racial segregation comes despite the fact the U.S. is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever. With the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, which ended legal segregation in schools coming this Friday, the numbers paint an alarming picture for educators and communities across the country. Axios has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description.

his story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The number of times Judge Juan Merchant has found former President Donald Trump in contempt of court for violating the gag order in his hush money trial is 10. The total fines imposed on Trump for violating that gag order is $10,000. The maximum number of days Trump could be sentenced to jail for further violations of his gag order is 30. Since 2015, the approximate number of New York criminal cases where falsifying business records in the first degree was the most serious charge that resulted in a prison sentence was 1 in 10, according to an analysis by Norman L. Eisen. The percentage of U.S. voters who say they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he's convicted of a crime in the Hushman trial is 29%, according to a March

2024 poll from Quinnipiac. The percentage of voters who say they would be more likely to vote for Trump if he's convicted of a crime in the trial is 12%. And the percentage of voters who say the outcome of the trial won't affect their vote is 55%. All right, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. After an architectural internship left her unmotivated, Nirman Rahim, a 16-year-old from Cologne, Germany, switched tracks and now plans to go to a technical college for teaching. Nirman is taking part in Kein Abschluss ohne Anschluss, or No Graduation Without Connection, a program that has been rolled out across the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia to help students better plan for their futures.

The KAOA program has helped students find more opportunities and trades that don't require college educations and has caught on across Germany and is gaining attention internationally. Reasons to be Cheerful has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangled.com and sign up for a membership. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of his team, this is John Long signing off. Have a great day, Isaac and the rest of his team, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. We'll be right back. inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight.

Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.