Politics
NY v Trump: Judge to consider defense motion to dismiss after prosecution rests case
Judge Juan Merchan could rule Tuesday morning on Trump defense attorneys’ motion to dismiss the case against the former president altogether after the prosecution rested its case following days of testimony from its star witness, Michael Cohen.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records 34 times to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and maintains his innocence.
This courtroom sketch shows Michael Cohen being questioned by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger on redirect during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 20, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
TRUMP SLAMS NY COURT SYSTEM, BOASTS HE’S GOING ‘TO WIN’ EMPIRE STATE
After Michael Cohen’s fourth day of testimony was complete, the prosecution rested its case, and Trump defense attorneys called two of their own witnesses.
At the end of court for the day, Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche asked for an immediate order of dismissal, saying there is “no evidence” that the filings or business records at the center of the case were false, that there are “absolutely no false business filings.”
Blanche said there is no dispute that Cohen acted as a personal attorney for Trump in 2017 and that there is no evidence or intent by Trump to mislead, hide or falsify business records.
Donald Trump and Michael Cohen (Getty Images)
Blanche said there would be records of intent to defraud, if they existed, and that there were no other crimes being covered up. He said there was no evidence of anyone thinking of a campaign finance charge when the payment was made to Stormy Daniels or when Cohen and then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg developed the repayment plan.
Blanche said Trump paid Cohen a $35,000 “monthly retainer,” which is what the records state, and said there is no evidence from any witness to prove any criminal intent.
Reflecting on the prosecution’s case, Blanche pointed to the alleged “catch and kill” strategy used to prevent a “demonstrably false” story a Trump Tower doorman had about Trump from being published.
“How on Earth is keeping a false story from voters criminal?” Blanche asked, adding it was “not a catch and kill and certainly not a criminal catch and kill.”
NY V TRUMP: MICHAEL COHEN ADMITS TO STEALING TENS OF THOUSANDS FROM FORMER PRESIDENT’S BUSINESS
“There is no way the court should let this case go to the jury with Mr. Cohen’s testimony,” Blanche said, adding that Cohen has lied under oath in the past and during the current criminal trial in Merchan’s courtroom.
Merchan asked Blanche if he should “find Mr. Cohen not credible by a matter of law,” to which Blanche said “yes.”
“So, you want me to take it out of the jury’s hands?” Merchan asked, with Blanche responding that Cohen’s entire testimony should not be considered by the jury.
Merchan told Blanche that if Cohen’s “lies” were “irrefutable,” then he would be able to convince the jury of that.
Michael Cohen is cross-examined by defense lawyer Todd Blanche during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 16, 2024, as shown in this courtroom sketch. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
The prosecution then argued that under the New York state falsifying business records statute, anyone “causing” the falsified records can be punished.
“As a matter of law, it is sufficient, more than sufficient, that the defendant set in motion the sequence of events leading to the falsification of business records,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued.
Merchan said he would reserve a ruling on whether to dismiss the case before the jury can deliberate.
Before the afternoon development, Trump defense attorneys on Monday continued to cross-examine Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and self-described “fixer,” who testified that he stole $30,000 from the Trump Organization.
Cohen said the move was “almost like self-help” because he was “angry” about his bonus being reduced.
Cohen testified that he was supposed to pay the $30,000 he withdrew from the bank to a tech company, Red Finch, in addition to $20,000 he had already paid them. Instead, he failed to make the payment, collected the $30,000 for himself, and led the Trump Organization to believe he had paid the total.
Prosecutors then briefly questioned Cohen on redirect, where he said that he had “more than 20” conversations with Trump about Stormy Daniels in 2016 and that Trump “no doubt” had signed off on the hush money payment for Daniels.
NY V TRUMP: MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIES HE’S CONSIDERING CONGRESSIONAL RUN
Cohen has testified that he personally made the $130,000 payment to Daniels using a home equity line of credit in an effort to conceal the payment from his wife. Cohen said he did this because Trump told him to “handle it” and prevent a negative story from coming out ahead of the 2016 election.
Cohen testified that he was “reimbursed $420,000” for the $130,000 he paid to Daniels. Cohen said Weisselberg suggested he “gross up” the payments and that Trump knew the details of that reimbursement.
Last week, the prosecution presented Cohen with 11 checks totaling $420,000. Cohen confirmed that they were all received and deposited. The checks had a description of “retainer,” which Cohen said was false.
But Monday, the prosecution rested its case against the former president.
Trump defense attorneys called two witnesses: paralegal Daniel Sitko and a former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, Robert Costello.
Sitko testified that Cohen and Costello had 75 phone calls in which Cohen told Costello that Trump knew nothing about the payment to Stormy Daniels.
This courtroom sketch shows presiding Judge Juan Merchan during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 14, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
Costello took the stand and testified that Cohen told him “numerous times” that Trump knew nothing of the payments, recalling Cohen telling him: “I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.”
Cohen, earlier in the day, recalled that he told numerous people that Trump knew nothing about the payment.
COHEN’S BOMBSHELL ADMISSION COULD LEAD TO HUNG JURY, IF NOT ACQUITTAL: EXPERT
But during his testimony, Costello clashed with Merchan. Costello audibly and visibly responded with disapproval to Merchan sustaining multiple objections from the prosecution concerning his testimony about Cohen.
“I’m sorry?” Merchan said to Costello after one reaction before clearing the courtroom.
“I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom,” Merchan said after the jury left. “You don’t say strike it, because I’m the only one who can strike it.”
Merchan directed Costello, a former federal prosecutor, not to respond, roll his eyes or react in any way to his rulings.
Before the jury returned to the courtroom, Costello looked at Merchan, prompting the judge to ask, “Are you staring me down?”
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger was leading the cross-examination of Costello. She said she had approximately 45 minutes left for questioning.
The defense said they won’t call any other witnesses, signaling that Trump won’t take the stand in his own defense.
Closing arguments are currently set for next Tuesday.
Politics
Fetterman unleashes on ‘dirtbag’ wing of Dems after far-left victories: ‘Orgy of socialism’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., unloaded on his own party on Sunday evening, blasting a series of victories for progressives he called “anti-America.”
“Big night for the dirtbag left,” Fetterman said, referring to New York’s recent primaries, where two members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won primaries.
“I’ve said the party is becoming an orgy of socialism. Clearly anti-America, anti-Western Civilization,” Fetterman said.
Fetterman’s striking calls give a rare look at how some moderates may view the developments on their far-left flank that have dominated the party’s momentum in recent months, sparking concern that their high visibility is dragging the party further and further left.
FETTERMAN WARNS DEMOCRATS ‘DRIFTING FIRMLY INTO COMMUNISM’ AFTER SOCIALIST PRIMARY WINS
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., speaks to reporters outside the Senate Chamber during votes on Nov. 10, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
His comments come on the heels of a handful of key progressive victories.
In Maine, Graham Platner, a controversial Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, has attracted controversy for denying knowledge of the meaning behind a Nazi-linked tattoo, for off-color comments about race and calling himself a “communist” in a deleted Reddit post.
In New York, one DSA member, Claire Valdez, won a primary on a platform of abolishing ICE and a Green New Deal-style approach to climate change. Similarly, Darializa Avila-Chevalier, another DSA candidate, beat out incumbent Rep. Adriano Espillat, D-N.Y., a high-ranking Democrat and the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
WINNERS AND LOSERS EMERGE AFTER SOCIALIST EARTHQUAKE ROCKS NYC PRIMARIES
Graham Platner, Democratic Senate candidate for Maine, speaks at a primary election night event at the Blue Hill YMCA in Blue Hill, Maine, on June 9, 2026. Platner won the party’s Senate primary after a campaign marked by accusations of past misbehavior and voter concerns. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Both Chevalier and Valdez had the backing of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a socialist.
The wins have captured national attention and drawn criticisms from Republicans who have pointed to their success as emblematic of the direction of the Democratic Party.
Fetterman, who has not shied away from confrontations, has been one of the few Democrats to express alarm about the kind of candidates carrying the party’s banner.
“I mean, you look at some of the things that people have said. Abolish prison, abolish the border, abolish ICE, I mean these crazy people — I have colleagues in my caucus that refuse to even call this out,” Fetterman said.
FETTERMAN REACTS TO MAMDANI’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SUPREME COURT’S IMMIGRATION RULING
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., walks through the Senate Subway during the Senate War Powers vote on April 22, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Between P-hustle in Maine and some of the other winners in New York, they should form their own party and run on all the things that they’ve had to delete on social media,” Fetterman said, referring to Platner.
“That’s where our party has moved,” he added.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cast doubt Monday on whether police may obtain cellphone data to find crime suspects.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices said this location information showing where a cellphone user has traveled is personal and private and subject to the protection of the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Elena Kagan said these “records serve as a personal journal of a user’s movements.”
She said the information “resembles other private materials — think of emails, documents, photographs, or calendars—that even if stored on Google’s servers, a user reasonably views as his own…and reasonably expects to be shielded from the inquisitive eyes of the government.”
Because an “individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his cellphone location data,” she said police investigators need a valid search warrant from a magistrate.
The court stopped short of deciding the proper basis for a search warrant in such cases. Instead, the justices sent the case back to judges in Virginia.
But the outcome casts doubt on “geofence warrants.”
In recent years, police have gone to Google and cellphone companies seeking tracking data on cellphones that were at a crime scene. Sometimes, they have had a warrant from a magistrate.
Civil libertarians say the use of this tracking data raises the specter of mass surveillance on innocent people.
Police and government lawyers say no one has a reasonable right to privacy when they are walking on a sidewalk or driving down the street.
The case before the court arose from the armed robbery conviction of a Virginia man who stole $195,000 from a credit union in a small town near Richmond.
By the time police arrived, the robber had fled. But surveillance cameras showed he was carrying a gun and a cellphone.
Lacking other leads, detective Joshua Hilton asked a judge to issue a special type of warrant seeking information from Google.
Referred to as a “geofence warrant,” it seeks data from phones in a particular area at a particular time.
The detective sought data on phones that were within 150 yards of the credit union within one hour of the late afternoon robbery.
After examining and paring down the data, the detective asked for the phone records of Okello Chatrie. Then, with a search warrant of his home, investigators found two robbery-style demand notes, a semi-automatic pistol and about $100,000 in cash.
A judge refused to suppress the evidence from an allegedly unconstitutional search, and Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea.
The full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals split evenly on the legality of the geofence warrant, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue in Chatrie vs. U.S.
Usually investigators obtain warrants to search the home or vehicle of a known crime suspect.
The new and disputed geofence warrants seek to find a suspect by examining data on the cellphones that were at the scene of a crime.
The FBI used this cellphone data in 2021 to identify suspects who broke through police barricades on Jan. 6, 2021, and pushed their way into the Capitol to disrupt the official counting of electoral votes.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed on the outcome in Chatrie vs. U.S.
In a 21-page dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the court had “carefully set the stage for its planned performance: striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age. I cannot support this irresponsible escapade.”
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed in a one-paragraph dissent. “Chatrie had no reasonable expectation of privacy in data about his public movements that he voluntarily disclosed to Google,” she said.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump could fire independent regulators for any reason. But the justices carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, preventing the immediate removal of Lisa D. Cook, a Federal Reserve governor.
-
Illinois9 minutes agoSerial Springfield Township sex offender faces public indecency charge
-
Idaho11 minutes agoIdaho man seriously injured in western Kansas motorcycle crash
-
Indiana19 minutes agoIndiana faces high odds of backyard fireworks accidents
-
Iowa26 minutes agoLaid-off Iowa state IT workers receive offers from private company
-
Kansas29 minutes ago2 rescued from roof as house fire breaks out in Kansas City
-
Kentucky29 minutes agoKentucky Wildcat News: Milan Momcilovic explains why he chose UK
-
Louisiana41 minutes agoLouisiana is epicenter for red snapper fishing in Gulf of America
-
Maine44 minutes agoMaine could face $50M in penalties from federal food assistance policy changes
