Posted on 03/22/2023 11:27:52 AM PDT by Red Badger
Michael Cohen‘s attorney, Robert Costello, was on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show and Rob Schmitt’s show on Newsmax, making the same comments each time. He explained that the Manhattan prosecutor had 321 emails and cherry-picked six to show to the grand jury. The prosecutor shared INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE with the grand jury.
That’s not justice.
Mr. Costello absolutely shredded Michael Cohen as a serial liar and completely untrustworthy.
Cohen’s former attorney was shocked that the Manhattan DA was going forward since their case depends on Michael Cohen, a convicted perjurer. Schmitt asked him about the cherry-picked emails and if that amounted to withholding exculpatory evidence.
Mr. Costello said, “I think it’s giving the grand jury incomplete evidence. I asked them during my grand jury proceeding to deliver the entire 321 emails because they are chronological, step-by-step, day-by-day communications, between Michael Cohen and myself, and between myself and my partner Jeff Citron, about Michael Cohen. And if you want to get a clear view of exactly what was going on, you need to see everything. You don’t just cherry-pick six out of 321. That’s less than 2%.”
Schmitt asked if he was shocked to learn that Alvin Bragg was going for something like this after the feds had already dumped it.” “Yes,” Costello said, “I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense. First of all, that, whatever case Alvin Bragg is bringing here rests almost exclusively on the credibility of Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen is a convicted perjurer. That was one of the counts that he pled guilty to. Besides being a convicted perjurer, if … the District Attorney went through those 321 emails, you will see probably another hundred lies that Michael Cohen made to us when we were representing him. It makes no sense. But if you look at those emails, you will see that one e-mail contradicts another e-mail, and Michael would forget that he took position A one day and position B a second day.
“So if you go to the end of the emails, which is really at the tail end of our representation and communication with Michael, you will see that there’s four or five emails in which he makes numerous false statements, and I respond and point out exactly why those statements were false, because and in fact, I said to him in one of the emails, Michael, you cannot write emails with false statements in it. I’m not going to let you. I’m going to respond each time, even though we thought that nobody would ever see those emails. This was a matter of principle. I would not let Michael Cohen write emails that were false and just sit by and do nothing.
Schmitt played a clip of Michael Cohen on MSNBC doing what he does best – Lying. He accused Mr. Costello of allegiance to Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump. Mr. Costello said he never represented Donald Trump or any of his companies. It’s not about that. It’s about the truth. People should also know that Cohen waived attorney-client privilege.
[The Manhattan case rests on Donald Trump paying Stormy so he could win the presidency, but all the evidence indicates he did it to protect his marriage. Donald Trump denies ever sleeping with Stormy Daniels.]
as far as I understand the process the DA only presents its evidence against the accused.
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
That’s is their objective.
Trump will make them regret it.................
You are correct — but most DAs wouldn’t do any of this knowing it would eventually lead to their cases falling apart.
Withholding Exculpatory Evidence
from any Agency is TERRORISM.
The DA and his controller Soros, are terrorists.
But certainly not politically motivated.
The FIB apparently does the same everyday when dealing with “domestic terrorists” created in their fervent minds.
as far as I understand the process the DA only presents its evidence against the accused.
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
*********
True, but this needs to be changed. Otherwise, an accused can be put to the expense and risk of a trial even when there is a mountain of evidence in his favor — evidence that would have resulted in no trial if it had been seen. Why bother to have grand juries if they are only puppets of the prosecutor?
It gets trickier than that.
I have just gotten off a month of grand jury duty. We dealt with a lot of cases. One example: some of the evidence presented to us consisted of security camera footage. We actually had one full shooting scene captured on the security camera of a building across the parking lot.
So here’s the question: what if a corrupt prosecutor edits the video? Maybe he just cuts off the beginning or the end to delete footage that refutes his case. Is this legitimate? Of course not.
That is substantively no different from what Bragg appears to have done in this case.
The prosecutor has the resources of the entire Gouvernement at his disposal. He/she is required by law to present the evidence all of it and to make it available to the defense.
A DA on the up and up wouldn’t have even gone to the grand jury if they were in possession of hundreds of pages of truly exculpatory evidence
Assuming the indictment occurs and Trump is charged, I look forward to the (legal) evisceration of Alvin.
This is merely a high profile case. Our system of pseudo-justice often denies jurors the taped confession, the testimony of a person not Mirandized perfectly and the narcotics, guns and stolen property found without a minutely detailed search warrant. And DA’s often withhold exculpatory evidence to hurt a defendant they don’t like-——such as Trump. Both sides in the pseudo-justice system suffer.
Hopefully there are cameras in the court room.
It’s my understanding that if a DA fails to present exculpatory evidence that refutes an element of the crime, any subsequent indictment should be dismissed. The DA is also subject to professional disciplinary action.
there is no defense during a grand jury. You are thinking of what is required during a trial.
that’s at the trial, not the grand jury.
He is really putting his reputation on the line with this story.
You cannot be compelled to testify in a Grand Jury proceeding.
how could the man and wife defend themselves at the grand jury, when they wouldn’t even be there?
quote from google “The process is not an adversarial process. The defendant is not present, and the defense attorney does not have a right to be in the room.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.