Posted on 05/13/2024 11:17:24 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Michael Cohen testified Monday he secretly recorded Donald Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election, discussing plans to buy a Playboy model’s story about having an affair with the then-candidate.
Cohen — who worked for Trump for more than a decade — told jurors in Manhattan Supreme Court that the Sept. 6, 2016, conversation, taped on the Voice Memos app on his iPhone, was the only time he surreptitiously recorded his former boss.
“So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?” Trump could allegedly be heard saying on the nearly three-minute recording played in court by Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger.
The conversation centered around plans to buy the rights to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal’s story about having an affair with the married Trump from the National Enquirer, according to testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The defense would have been presented with a copy of that recording. If they want to allege that it was tampered with they can do so.
There isnt an actual crime here. Just wishful thinking.
The reason you hire a lawyer is to make sure what you do is legal and prudent. If a discussion with legal counsel to be sure your conduct is legal and prudent is now a crime what is next thought crimes. It is hard sell to say Real President Trump is a legal expert.
The most important thing is for President Trump to be open and transparent with the public and does not attempt to hide something embarrassing causing him to fall into a legal trap.
Remember Nixon
Violates Attorney-Client privilege
And Cohen used AI to cite cases that never existed. So Cohen uses AI in court rooms.
“So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?”
Doesn’t sound like Trumps way of speaking wonder if it’s a recording of a doctored recording.
Trump could allegedly be heard ??????????
Wouldn’t put anything that ambulance chaser.
In NY, I believe only one of the parties needs to authorize the recording.
What a coincidence! The only time he ever recorded Trump just happens to be in a case that is brought 7 years later about that very thing! What are the odds?
If I have this right, Trump isn’t charged with the McDougall matter, only for the record keeping on Stormy Daniels?
So this is only allowed to show this was Trump’s method of working with Cohen.
But it’s also very prejudicial.
And no, not illegal at all.
And nothing was illegal regarding Stormy, either.
If a witness testifying during trial is unmasked as a perjurer, his testimony gets flushed. With that in mind, why on earth would a sane prosecutor knowingly enlist the testimony of one whose perjury conviction is open knowledge.
Of course, the answer is obvious. There are no actual rules of criminal procedure being observed here in Monkey Court.
So Trump discussed how to dispense with McDougal’s false claims, but no discussion of the situation at hand, which isn’t illegal in any case. Talk about trying to muddy the waters.
What a coincidence! The only time he ever recorded Trump just happens to be in a case that is brought 7 years later about that very thing! What are the odds?
No direct relevance, yet they’re able to put it in front of the jury. I guess the judge’s attitude is “ Let the take it up on appeal”.
Where do you find it that Karen McDougal extorted Trump?
I’ve been following the trial and no one has suggested that.
Why wasn't Clifford charged with libel, slander and extortion?
She signed and swore 2 affidavits and said publicly there was no sex.
Now, she accuses him of rape.
WAPpy has been here on FR a whole 5 weeks.
Hey, WAPpy, what caused you to visit FR and then sign up to begin posting?
If Cohen told Trump he was going to front the NDA money, as he claims (consider this is from the least credible source I’ve ever seen testify), is the suggestion that this proves Trump sought to avoid a federal campaign violation? How so? How preposterous! Regardless, there’s no conceivable federal campaign violation. — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) May 13, 2024
Spiking news stories has been around 100 years, the Left are experts at it. Sometimes you pay, sometimes you threaten.
Is the recording legal? If not, why was it admitted into evidence?
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.