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.]
I don’t practice criminal law, but I am an attorney. I think it is required to be produced.
Bragg and Cohen need to be jailed over this along with Soros and Pelosi etc. etc.
Pelosi hid evidence in the J6 cases as well.
Now having Bragg do so to jail an innocent nman on made up charges.
“9-11.233 - PRESENTATION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
In United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts’ supervisory powers over the grand jury did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department’s policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.
[cited in JM 9-5.001]”
The above is federal grand jury policy, per the DOJ.
If NYS and/or NYC professes to have a similar policy, the DA has some splainin’ to do...
I believe such is allowed due to the “Trump exception” to all laws and norms of society.
Is that not fraud?
I don’t know. I think if a prosecutor has exculpatory evidence he has a duty to present it to the grand jury.
While the prosecutor represents the state and has no obligation to present the defendant’s side of the story, he has an obligation to present evidence to the Grand Jury that is “clearly exculpatory.”
If this surprises you, be mad at the Sun for shining.
While it is true that there is no ‘defense’ during the grand jury, democRATS have used the ‘justice system’ to attack and kill (politically) any effective conservative. Just research the 10 year attack on Tom Delay. Delay was later quoted that if he did not have such a deep faith in the Lord, he would not be alive today.
The Party of Death and pedophiles has no conscience, no soul, and evil abounds
Apparently not........
I was on a Grand Jury in Alabama. On one of the cases we heard, the defendant requested to testify before the Grand Jury. The district attorney allowed him to give a statement. He didn’t have to allow that.
Grand Jurors have much more power than they realize.
What difference does it make?
Not in a grand jury proceeding. There is no defendant in such a proceeding
What story? He told the truth
Can be is different than a trial with a defendant
Only at a criminal trial
Most state, including apparently NY, differ from Federal procedure and require the presentation of exculpatory evidence to the GJ.
It certainly seemed so to me.
If he proceeds Trump should sue for malicious prosecution.
He’s probably been told by higher ups that he should drop this immediately......................
True, but most Americans donâÂÂt know this and going after the guy who should be President shines a sun-sized spotlight on how corrupt our judicial system is to normies. Bragg made one of the biggest blunders in modern political history, but when there is zero fear of ramifications from the DOJ or NY state leadership he got sloppy/âÂÂ.
Correct. There is no defense attorney at a grand jury, the potential accused doesn’t testify and doesn’t learn what evidence has been presented. The entire standard is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge without regard to any defense.
In most states, most cases don’t even go to the grand jury but are filed based on an “information”, essentially an affidavit by the prosecutor that there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe a crime has been committed and that the axc
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.