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.]
They chose to be there and to defend themselves. I was on the grand jury.
Right to Testify
An accused has no right to testify at a N.J. grand jury. However, the prosecutor may extend an invitation for a defendant or target of investigation to testify. Under this circumstance, a defendant will have the “privilege” of testifying provided he waives his Miranda rights and right to counsel as defense attorneys are not permitted to be present at grand jury proceedings.
This is what happened.
It has no obligation to present a defense. Which is why they say you could “indict a ham sandwich”
https://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/criminal-process/grand-jury-overview/rights-of-accused-at-grand-jury/
Right to Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence
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.” In order for evidence to satisfy this threshold, it must refute an element of the crime charged. If the prosecutor fails to present evidence that is exculpatory and meets this standard, that conduct warrants dismissal of the indictment.
Now that is NJ but I would think NY would be similar.
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.