The prosecution and defense rested yesterday, meaning, to no one’s shock, that Donald Trump did not testify.

Trump had said he would, but it would have been judicial malpractice for his lawyers to expose him to a hundred different lines of interrogation. 

Michael Cohen went into the hush money trial with a well-established reputation as a convicted liar.

We all knew he would be hammered on cross-examination for lying on behalf of Trump, lying to Congress, lying to investigators and lying to the press. That was baked into the equation.

CROSS-EXAMINATION THROWS MICHAEL COHEN OFF BALANCE, BUT BELABORS POINT THAT HE HATES TRUMP

But the lie he acknowledged on Monday is in a whole different category – and may be a turning point in convincing one or more jurors to dismiss him as a money-grubbing thief and vote for Trump’s acquittal.

The onetime fixer fixed up a nice deal for himself: stealing from the Trump Organization.

Yep, he did it, said Cohen. Yep, he lied about it. Yep, he gladly pocketed the money because he was angry about his bonus being cut.

This was a real Perry Mason moment – and an absolute failure by the prosecution.

On the other litany of lies, Alvin Bragg’s lawyers brought them up on direct examination, with the best possible spin, to soften the sting when Trump’s lawyers were grilling him.

But on this one? Nada. At first, I thought Cohen didn’t tell the prosecutors, but Trump lawyer Todd Blanche asked, “And you told multiple prosecutors in the District 13 Attorney’s Office that story, right?”

“Yes sir.”

So it was sheer sloppiness – an unbelievable failure.

And the narrative gets even sleazier.

The Trump campaign hired a tech firm called Red Finch to try to discredit unfavorable polls by CNBC and Drudge. The fee was $50,000. Cohen delivered $20,000 in cash stuffed into a brown bag to the company’s chief – nothing suspicious there, right?

And Cohen kept the other $30,000 – later grossed up to $60,000 for tax reasons – blatantly stealing from his ex-boss’s company. (Trump decided not to pay Red Finch because its efforts petered out but didn’t know about the bag o’ cash.)

MICHAEL COHEN, CORROBORATING OTHERS, SAYS TRUMP WANTED TO SILENCE STORMY BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION

There was little the prosecutors could do when they had their turn. Cohen said he was “angered” by the two-thirds cut in his usual $150K bonus “so I just felt it was almost like self-help. You know, I wasn’t going to let him have the benefit this way as well.”

Ah, self-help. Stealing as therapy. A pretty lame explanation.

It didn’t matter what else Cohen said in 2018, such as insisting he would never have paid the $130,000 in hush money to Stormy Daniels, which is well-documented, without the president’s explicit approval. The damage had been done.

But there were more fireworks to come.

The defense called as its main witness Robert Costello, a veteran lawyer and talented talker who represented Cohen for a few months.

Former President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower on his way to Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 15, 2024, in New York.  (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

Cohen has testified that he didn’t trust Costello because he was close to Rudy Giuliani, offering a back channel to the White House, but also the risk that anything Cohen said would be repeated there.

Costello testified that he told Cohen that his legal problems could be resolved “if he had truthful information on Donald Trump and cooperated with the Southern District of New York.”

Cohen’s response, according to Costello, repeated 10 or 12 times: “I swear to God, Bob. I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.”

That was obviously a big fat lie.

Costello also alleged that Cohen had told him Trump didn’t know about the hush money payments, which gets to the heart of the case.

STORMY ALLEGES ONE-NIGHT STAND WITH TRUMP, AGREED TO LIE FOR HER $130,000 PAYOFF

But Robert Costello walked into that courtroom with a giant chip on his shoulder.  

After one question, he audibly said “ridiculous.” After another, he said “Geez.”

Judge Juan Merchan had enough and sent the jury out.

“If you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say ‘Geez,’ okay. And then you don’t say ‘strike it;’ because I’m the only one that can strike testimony in the courtroom.”

The lecture was severe. “And then, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t give me side eye and you don’t roll your eyes. Do you understand that?”

Costello gave the judge a long stare. “Are you staring me down right now?” At that point, he declared, “Clear the courtroom.” Everyone later returned.

Michael Cohen is questioned by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger on re-direct during former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial on charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in Manhattan state court in New York City, May 20, 2024, in this courtroom sketch. (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg )

In yesterday’s testimony, the prosecution got Costello to acknowledge he was referring to Trump when saying he had “friends in high places.” 

An email about “getting everyone on the same page” was because Cohen “had been complaining incessantly that Rudy Giuliani was making statements in the press,” Costello said.

He said an email about getting everyone “on the same page” was about working out the complaints about Rudy.

Costello denied the prosecutor’s question about “encouraging him not to cooperate.”

On redirect, the defense asked: What about an email saying you were being “played”?

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES

Costello said they kept urging Cohen to sign a retainer – so they could get paid – but he kept making excuses and putting it off.

Was he pressuring Michael Cohen to do anything? Costello said he was not.

And that was it. Closing arguments are set for next Tuesday.

The prosecution has plenty of other witnesses and documents, but Cohen is the only one tying Trump directly to his reimbursement for hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal in this openly partisan and shakily built case. So Cohen’s evisceration on the stand really matters to the falsification of documents charge, unless 12 jurors believe that the former president had to know.

In the race to replace former Rep. Kevin McCarthy in Congress, San Joaquin Valley voters Tuesday chose Vince Fong, a Republican state assemblyman who was endorsed by McCarthy and Donald Trump.

The Associated Press called California’s 20th Congressional District special election for Fong at 8:17 p.m. Fong bested fellow Republican Mike Boudreaux, the Tulare County sheriff.

McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) resigned from Congress at the end of 2023 after being voted out as House speaker. Fong will complete McCarthy’s term, which ends in January, representing a vast agricultural district that stretches through Kern, Tulare, Kings and Fresno counties.

In a prepared statement, Fong said that he was “filled with humility and gratitude” at the early results.

“With the campaign over, the real work now begins,” he said. “In Congress, I will remain focused on solving the tough issues facing our community — securing the border, supporting small business, bringing investment in water storage and infrastructure, unleashing our energy industry, and keeping the United States safe amidst the grave security threats facing our nation.”

Fong, 44, began his career working for McCarthy’s predecessor, then-Rep. Bill Thomas, then worked for nearly a decade as McCarthy’s district director before winning a seat in the Assembly in 2016.

Boudreaux, 57, has been the sheriff of Tulare County for more than a decade and serves as the head of the California State Sheriffs’ Assn.

Boudreaux said in a statement that he called to congratulate Fong on Tuesday night. He added that he was “absolutely humbled by the outpouring of support from family, friends, and neighbors across Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern counties who stepped up to volunteer their time and energy to our campaign and donated generously to spread our message for a better Valley.”

Fong and Boudreaux will meet again in November, when voters will choose a representative for a full two-year term in Congress. Being the incumbent will give Fong a significant advantage.

Although McCarthy was not on the ballot, the former House speaker had a hand in boosting Fong, using his political influence and fundraising prowess to help his handpicked successor.

Fong placed first in the March primary for the full two-year term and the remainder of McCarthy’s term, and raised more than three times as much money as Boudreaux.

Fong also had support from a political action committee called Central Valley Values, which reported raising $950,000 from McCarthy’s Majority Committee PAC and a new PAC funded by major Republican donors, including longtime McCarthy ally Barbara Grimm-Marshall of Bakersfield’s Grimmway Farms, the world’s largest carrot grower.

Fong was also boosted by the endorsement from Trump in March, widely seen as orchestrated by McCarthy. The endorsement was a coup for Fong, who has largely avoided the culture wars that dominate factions of the GOP and sought to win over right-wing Republicans skeptical of the political establishment.

Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 566 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2024 Page 19 of 28
aggressive position in the opening submission, they agreed to “seek[] only Per. 18’s fact work
product.” Id.
Following a March 9, 2023, hearing attended by the Special Counsel’s Office and counsel
for President Trump and Per. 18, Judge Howell granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion.
Ex. 17. The court ordered Per. 18 to produce documents “reflecting his efforts to comply” with
the Trump Office Subpoena, and that “may have informed his knowledge” of the Trump
Organization Subpoena. Judge Howell also required Per. 18 to produce the May 2022
Recording and the June 2022 Recording, based on reasoning set forth in separate orders. Exs. 18,
19. On March 22, 2023, the D.C. Circuit denied motions by President Trump and Per. 18 to stay
Judge Howell’s rulings. See Order, In re Sealed Case, Nos. 23-3035, 23-3036 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 22,
2023).
7. The Compelled Testimony
On March 24, 2023, the Special Counsel’s Office required Per. 18 and to testify
before a grand jury in the District of Columbia—despite the lack of venue for any of the offenses
under consideration. The prosecutors questioned Per. 18 extensively regarding, inter alia, the
otherwise-privileged communications with President Trump, the May 2022 Recording, and the
June 2022 Recording.
B. Applicable Law
1. Attorney-Client Privilege And Work Product
“Traditionally, the attorney-client privilege, like the privilege extending to attorney work
product, is sacrosanct.” United States v. Stein, 2023 WL 2585033, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (cleaned
up). “The attorney-client privilege attaches, of course, to confidential communications between
an attorney and client for the purposes of securing legal advice or assistance.” Drummond Co.,
17