Speaker 1: Welcome to political beat down. I'm been my cellist, joined
Speaker 1: by Dina Doll. Michael Cohen is still testifying at the
Speaker 1: Trump criminal trial. He was on cross exam all day.
Speaker 1: The cross examination did not complete today. It will keep
Speaker 1: going until Monday. Trump's lawyers said that they expect to
Speaker 1: be done with the cross exam of Cohen on Monday morning,
Speaker 1: and we could have closing arguments Dina as soon as Tuesday.
Speaker 1: By Tuesday afternoon, it's possible the jury will get this
Speaker 1: case and the jury will be instructed, and we could
Speaker 1: have a verdict as early as next week. So we
Speaker 1: are moving pretty expeditiously in this criminal trial. I know
Speaker 1: many people thought it may have went until the end
Speaker 1: of June. Early next week we'll hear whether or not
Speaker 1: Donald Trump will be testifying. I don't think he's going
Speaker 1: to be testifying, but there will be a declarative ask
Speaker 1: of Trump whether or not he will be testifying. I
Speaker 1: think he will be informed of his constitutional right to
Speaker 1: do so by Justice Mershon. I think we're all fairly
Speaker 1: confident that Trump is going to decline and invoke his
Speaker 1: Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination and not testify, which
Speaker 1: he has an absolute constitutional right to do, and if
Speaker 1: he does that, the jury can't be told. Look, the
Speaker 1: fact that he's not testifying shows that he's guilty. He
Speaker 1: can't do that in a criminal case. In a civil case,
Speaker 1: you can do that. In a criminal case, you can
Speaker 1: do that. Look, all in all, today I thought Cohen
Speaker 1: handled himself well on cross examination. There were multiple observers
Speaker 1: in the courtroom, reporters who reflected that we have multiple
Speaker 1: sources in the courtroom, people who work for our network
Speaker 1: who were there as well, people telling me on background
Speaker 1: what they observed. They said that Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche
Speaker 1: was very disjointed, He was slow to make his points.
Speaker 1: Cohen was calm, making eye contact with the jury the
Speaker 1: entire time. You know. There was this one moment about
Speaker 1: a phone call that Cohen had on like October twenty
Speaker 1: fourth with Donald Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller, and Cohen discussed
Speaker 1: how that could have been about kind of multiple topics
Speaker 1: Stormy as well as this like fourteen year old kid
Speaker 1: who was harassing him as well, And there were text
Speaker 1: messages also talking about this like fourteen year old kid
Speaker 1: who was harassing Cohen and the and the campaign. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the prosecution kind of objected to it as Todd Blanche
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyer started like just yelling at Cohen. The objections
Speaker 1: were sustained by Justice Mrshan And you know, this was
Speaker 1: supposed to be some big moment. You know, it was
Speaker 1: very odd. You know, Ari Melber from MSNBC used this
Speaker 1: term about this thing about that interaction. It said it
Speaker 1: was a blood bath. That was the term like Ari
Speaker 1: Melber had used, and I saw it used on c
Speaker 1: you know, I'm then used on CNN. Look, people who
Speaker 1: watch this show know that Ari Melber has some personal
Speaker 1: animosity towards Michael Cohen. Melbur platformed Michael Lavinatti and had
Speaker 1: Michael Aavanatti go on the show to talk crap about Cohen.
Speaker 1: Cohen then talk crap about Melbur for doing that, saying
Speaker 1: how are you having Avannadi on your show? And so
Speaker 1: they went back and forth kind of there, you know,
Speaker 1: and it does seem that Melbur harbors this kind of
Speaker 1: personal animosity towards Michael Cohen, because look, if you want
Speaker 1: to say did the defense score a point here or
Speaker 1: there and say, you know, oh, look, perhaps on direct exam,
Speaker 1: it could have been brought up that Cohen was discussing
Speaker 1: Stormy and maybe this other topic as well, like you
Speaker 1: can do in a conversation, even if it's a short
Speaker 1: conversation that lasts under two minutes. You can discuss two
Speaker 1: topics in a conversation and perhaps on direct that should
Speaker 1: have been brought out so you can say, Okay, I
Speaker 1: see how the defense gets a point right there. But
Speaker 1: to say like that that moment used the term bloodbath
Speaker 1: and then all of the other overwhelming evidence against Donald
Speaker 1: Trump thus far, you never hear the media talking about
Speaker 1: any of that stuff. And by the way, you don't
Speaker 1: hear the media talking about what happened, which frankly was
Speaker 1: a bloodbath against our constitution this morning, as you had
Speaker 1: MAGA Republican members of Congress show up and parade themselves,
Speaker 1: Matt Gates, Lauren Bobert, eleven others today who were there,
Speaker 1: who were all saying that they're there for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and they were violating the gag order on his behalf.
Speaker 1: Here's a list of about a dozen MAGA Republican Congress
Speaker 1: members who showed up to engage in witness intimidation. And
Speaker 1: then you had Matt Gates post I'm here, stand back,
Speaker 1: stand by, I'm with you Donald Trump quoting the Proud Boy.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't see the outrage there from Ari Melburn.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't see the outrage there from CNN
Speaker 1: and Anderson Cooper. But where Michael Cohen calmly performed very
Speaker 1: well on the witness stand and the cross exam overall
Speaker 1: was pretty bad, and there was just one moment, and
Speaker 1: the media then says that that's a that that's a
Speaker 1: what are they even? What are they even talking about?
Speaker 1: In any event, Dina, tell us what you thought of
Speaker 1: today's proceedings. I've been I've been talking a lot with Karen.
Speaker 1: I'm worked up.
Speaker 2: I love hearing you talk.
Speaker 1: Ben.
Speaker 3: You know, I just feel like, yeah, the cable news
Speaker 3: takeaway they were desperate I think for a gotcha moment
Speaker 3: against Michael Cohen. You know, they were kind of hyping
Speaker 3: it up themselves. They're all about ratings and so anything.
Speaker 3: I just felt like they just like grabbed onto because
Speaker 3: I do think the takeaway was at its worst. This
Speaker 3: phone phone call was about two things. I mean, if
Speaker 3: anybody has seen Michael Cohen talk or done his tiktoks,
Speaker 3: he can.
Speaker 2: Say a lot in two minutes. Two minutes is quite
Speaker 2: a lot.
Speaker 3: I recap the trial every day in a minute in
Speaker 3: thirty seconds, so certainly you can have more than one conversation,
Speaker 3: but even more importantly, you know, talking about the facts right,
Speaker 3: and talking about what matters here is the facts and
Speaker 3: the transcripts. I went back and looked at the opening
Speaker 3: statement transcript. How much did they rely right on that
Speaker 3: one phone call? And the fact is the prosecutor talks
Speaker 3: about quite a few times that Michael Cohen was speaking
Speaker 3: with Donald Trump about the payment. They didn't say there
Speaker 3: was this one phone call where he talks about it.
Speaker 3: So I don't think this is going to be hard
Speaker 3: for the prosecution to overcome. And I still keep on saying.
Speaker 2: The tape, the tape, the tape, because.
Speaker 3: The jury has already heard twice, and who knows it
Speaker 3: might get replayed again and closing, but they've already heard
Speaker 3: twice Donald Trump's own words talking about the payment to
Speaker 3: Karen McDougall, the one hundred and fifty thousand dollars payment,
Speaker 3: and Michael Cohen talking about how the plan was to
Speaker 3: structure the payment. The payment to Stormy Daniels is so similar.
Speaker 3: It's similar in facts, it's similar in pattern, That's why
Speaker 3: it got introduced to have pattern evidence to help prove
Speaker 3: the intent for this Stormy Daniels crime. That's exactly how
Speaker 3: the jury is going to be instructed to look.
Speaker 2: At that tape.
Speaker 3: And then also we heard from David Pecker, and you know,
Speaker 3: we heard from everybody. We heard from so many witnesses
Speaker 3: about the many conversations of the hush many payments. So
Speaker 3: basically what the defense did today was try to say
Speaker 3: that one of the phone calls, one of the conversations
Speaker 3: between Michael Cohen and and Donald Trump may have also
Speaker 3: had to do with this fourteen year old harassment.
Speaker 2: If they didn't have.
Speaker 3: The recording, maybe that would be stronger. But that is
Speaker 3: certainly not to me enough when you have a recording
Speaker 3: like Donald Trump, and you have other witnesses like David
Speaker 3: Pecker who's clearly talking about the scheme that they had
Speaker 3: to do. So I don't think this was anything close
Speaker 3: to what they needed to do. I mean, and cross examination,
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, Ben, I mean, as a practicing lawyer,
Speaker 3: cross examination is supposed to score some points, right, I mean,
Speaker 3: I don't think I have ever seen a witness on
Speaker 3: the stand that never has any points scored against him,
Speaker 3: like that's just impossible. That's why you have redirect, that's
Speaker 3: why they're going to have an hour. And the fact
Speaker 3: of the matter is that one phone call is not
Speaker 3: the thumb of the prosecution's case.
Speaker 1: Exactly. I mean, that's the point of cross exam and
Speaker 1: I think it's fair to say, and look, I'll say
Speaker 1: it on political beat down. I want to be objective.
Speaker 1: Could you say that there was a tiny point that
Speaker 1: was scored that a conversation can be about multiple topics,
Speaker 1: and on direct it seemed that it was just about
Speaker 1: one topic, but it actually could have been about two topics.
Speaker 1: And then there's all the other evidence corroborating it around
Speaker 1: that time that it would be about the other topic,
Speaker 1: which will be they will go over it again on
Speaker 1: redirect of But okay, so it's a point. Why is
Speaker 1: the media using these terms like that? And because when
Speaker 1: you use the term like blood bath, you assume that
Speaker 1: that then means like that must have been fatal and
Speaker 1: you know, to the whole case, and it's it couldn't
Speaker 1: be further from that when you actually break it down.
Speaker 1: Here is what went down, because let's just go to
Speaker 1: the transcript about what went down ready. So moments later,
Speaker 1: Cohen texted Shiller, Trump's bodyguard, the number of the person
Speaker 1: who had been placing these harassing phone calls around this
Speaker 1: time period October twenty fourth, so Blande, Trump's lawyer, then
Speaker 1: pressed Cohen about his testimony that the call was with
Speaker 1: Trump about Daniels and not with Shiller about harassing phone
Speaker 1: calls that Cohen in the campaign were receiving. Quote that
Speaker 1: was a lie, Blanche said to Cohen, his voice rising
Speaker 1: and his tone sharp. And then Cohen's response was part
Speaker 1: of it was the fourteen year old. But I know
Speaker 1: that Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard, was with mister Trump at
Speaker 1: the time, and it was more than just this, he said,
Speaker 1: referring to the calls. And then this is Trump's lawyer.
Speaker 1: You had enough time in one minute and thirty six
Speaker 1: seconds to update mister Schiller about all the harassing phone
Speaker 1: calls and the update on Stormy Daniels, Blanche asked, growing impatient.
Speaker 1: Owen replies calmly that he quote always ran everything by
Speaker 1: the boss immediately, and in this case, it could have
Speaker 1: been just saying everything's been taken care of, it's going
Speaker 1: to be resolved. At that Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer lost
Speaker 1: his school. Quote. That was a lie. That was a lie,
Speaker 1: he said, his voice now rising to a shriek. You
Speaker 1: can admit it. And then Cohen says, no, sir, I can't.
Speaker 1: Cohen said, repeating that in addition to the conversation with
Speaker 1: Schiller about the calls, quote, I believe that I also
Speaker 1: spoke to mister Trump and told him everything regarding Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels was being worked on and it's going to be resolved.
Speaker 1: And then Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche says, we are not
Speaker 1: asking for your belief. Blanche said angrily, this jury doesn't
Speaker 1: want to hear what you think happened. And there was
Speaker 1: an objection by the prosecution and the objection was sustained,
Speaker 1: so that last question was stricken and then they took
Speaker 1: a break. That's the moment. That's it. There's nothing else
Speaker 1: that they were referring to. So again, Dina, when I
Speaker 1: read what went down, I want to say, so that's
Speaker 1: what Ari Melber was saying. Was this using the term
Speaker 1: blood bath moment that Cohen may have clarified that there
Speaker 1: was more to the conversation than just one topic from
Speaker 1: a phone call that was made in twenty in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: like huh. And then here's the thing to Dina. If
Speaker 1: the media is going to use terms like that to
Speaker 1: refer to Cohen, then use those terms when there actually
Speaker 1: is overwhelming evidence every other day in trial about Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and they don't. They soften that language and act like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't really know, and no, no, no, and try look
Speaker 1: strong today. You know, they say all of these things.
Speaker 1: I mean, take a look at this, Diana. Moments ago,
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump was exiting the court, he admits that
Speaker 1: he had an NDA and Trump says it was an
Speaker 1: illegal and he said illegal. I think he meant legal,
Speaker 1: but Trump said I have illegal NDA. Would storm me.
Speaker 1: You're playing this clip that was.
Speaker 3: From Jonathan Joerley Andrew McCarthy NDAs or legal in comment,
Speaker 3: Trump's was illegal.
Speaker 1: I have the only way illegal India. Good see. And
Speaker 1: so you're not going to hear the media talk about
Speaker 1: that moment. You know, we'll talk about it here. But
Speaker 1: but but Dina, as I read this way, show me
Speaker 1: the data where that was this moment, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't get it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And to the point about the NDA that the
Speaker 3: jury got as evidence, Trump's tweet where he talks about
Speaker 3: it being a reimbursement. You know that Cohen has this,
Speaker 3: he was invoice but it was a reimbursement for the end.
Speaker 2: So in Trump's own words through this.
Speaker 3: Tweet, he's talking about the reimbursement, he's talking about the NDA.
Speaker 3: So there's just so much, like you said, other evidence,
Speaker 3: I think, and I do think, and I kind of
Speaker 3: said this on Tuesday's show that I think the problem
Speaker 3: is is that people are being too nuanced about how
Speaker 3: strong this case is and the country isn't going to
Speaker 3: be prepared because when you have tweets like that being
Speaker 3: introduced and recordings being introduced, so much evidence being introduced
Speaker 3: on this case, I think this case is stronger than
Speaker 3: the legal analysts are talking about on the networks. And
Speaker 3: so when you have this one cross question that maybe
Speaker 3: muddies the water about there being two topics instead of
Speaker 3: one topic, which I don't think discounts all the evidence
Speaker 3: that came forward, and you're calling it a bloodbath, you're
Speaker 3: really kind of I think giving the country the wrong
Speaker 3: impression about how strong this case is. And hasn't the
Speaker 3: media done this all alone? Diminished Trump's power and for
Speaker 3: whatever reason, been willing to put him on air even
Speaker 3: though he's lying, and you know, over and over and
Speaker 3: over again, and they I think they're doing that in
Speaker 3: this trial. To me, like I said, I watch live
Speaker 3: trials all the time. That is what I do for
Speaker 3: a living. And a typical trial like this, you would
Speaker 3: come out every day and say, this is huge, strong evidence.
Speaker 3: You don't get, honestly, as much evidence of the defendant's.
Speaker 2: Own words in a trial. It's really unusual.
Speaker 3: But because Trump likes to talk, the jury has heard
Speaker 3: a lot of really damaging evidence from him directly.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about that when we come back
Speaker 1: from our break. Exactly. You watch hundreds of these trials
Speaker 1: every single year, and the amount of evidence that you
Speaker 1: see here against Trump is overwhelming. You don't see and
Speaker 1: in all those other cases where the jury finds beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty, you don't
Speaker 1: have the tweets, you don't have the posts, you don't
Speaker 1: have the statements of them saying that they're doing it.
Speaker 1: And there are convictions in those cases, and those cases
Speaker 1: are covered by the media actually through a pretty objective lens.
Speaker 1: But when it comes to a Trump case, the media,
Speaker 1: the corporate media throws it all out. They bend backwards
Speaker 1: to try to help Donald Trump. You've got Fox and
Speaker 1: right wing kind of propaganda media, which is just like
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un style at this point. But then you've
Speaker 1: got corporate media, you know, even like on an MSNBC,
Speaker 1: which Trump calls ms DNC. But you've got someone like
Speaker 1: Ari Melber, who's got some personal beef with Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: who's out there calling that moment that we just read
Speaker 1: in those terms, which is just belied by the actual
Speaker 1: data anyway. So when we get back, I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you more about that, and I want to
Speaker 1: talk about this stunt by these magha Republicans Congress members.
Speaker 1: It's supposed to be a coequal branch of government. Trump
Speaker 1: like dresses them up to look like him, and they
Speaker 1: show up there and they it's the ultimate boot licking.
Speaker 1: And you see right there the sign behind Matchetts. This
Speaker 1: is just humiliating for our it's just humiliating for our nation.
Speaker 1: And Matt Gates saying stand back and stand by horrible,
Speaker 1: horrible stuff. We'll be right back after this quick break.
Speaker 1: As you know, I'm a professor, podcaster, co founder of
Speaker 1: a media network we're doing a lot. Living a more
Speaker 1: heart healthy life fuels everything I do and everything you do.
Speaker 1: Introducing three to one blood pressure support plus COQ ten
Speaker 1: from Superbeats Hardshoes Advance, paired with the Healthy Live style,
Speaker 1: the grape seed extract and super Beats is clinically shown
Speaker 1: to be nearly two times more effective at promoting normal
Speaker 1: blood pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone. New Superbeats Hart
Speaker 1: Shoes Advance supports healthy coq ten level and important nutrient
Speaker 1: for heart held. Superbeats Hard Shoes are incredibly delicious and
Speaker 1: so much better than any ali toternative supplements out there.
Speaker 1: I take my Superbeats Heart Shoes each morning and it's
Speaker 1: really kickstarted my morning routine. After taking my Superbeats hards Shoes,
Speaker 1: I feel like I have more energy and am ready
Speaker 1: to take on the day. COQ ten generates ninety five
Speaker 1: percent of the cellular energy your heart needs, but it
Speaker 1: can decline with age, stress, and statin use. Superbeats Hartshoes
Speaker 1: Advance is effective and contains clinically researched ingredients from Superbeats.
Speaker 1: The number one doctor, pharmacist and cardiologists recommended Beat brand
Speaker 1: for cardiovascular health support. Find out how you can get
Speaker 1: a free thirty days supply on bundles of new Superbeats
Speaker 1: Hardshoes Advance and save fifteen percent for a limited time
Speaker 1: only by going to super Beats Radio dot com and
Speaker 1: use the promo code beat that's super s U p
Speaker 1: E R b E E t Sradio dot com. Use
Speaker 1: the promo code beat that's super Beats b E E
Speaker 1: T S Radio dot com and then use the promo
Speaker 1: code beat fellows blink. If you haven't purchased the Father's
Speaker 1: Day gift yet, Yeah, we thought so. Today's episode is
Speaker 1: brought to you by Manscaped. The leaders in below the
Speaker 1: waste Grooming. Our friends at manscaped have crafted the total
Speaker 1: package for his special day. Whether it's for the boys downstairs,
Speaker 1: beard or even the best pair of underwear out there,
Speaker 1: Manscaped has all the bases covered. Head over to manscape
Speaker 1: dot com and get twenty percent off plus free shipping
Speaker 1: with code mitas from Daddy to Zaddy Trust Manscaped. You
Speaker 1: know that beard trimmer that your dad's been using since
Speaker 1: you were in grade school, Yeah, it probably needs upgrading.
Speaker 1: Introducing the Beard Hedger Pro Kit, the complete beard maintenance
Speaker 1: kit for all the Bearded Kings. This all in one
Speaker 1: kit comes with a beard hedger, Manscape's most advanced beard trimmer,
Speaker 1: as well as shampoo, conditioner, oil and bomb for his beard.
Speaker 1: It also comes with a brush, comb and scissors so
Speaker 1: he could style his beard and mustache like the true
Speaker 1: gentleman he is.
Speaker 4: And no beer kit would be complete without manscapes handyman
Speaker 4: face shaver for that smooth finish we know he loves.
Speaker 4: This bad boy is all he needs. Compact enough to
Speaker 4: fit in any travel case, make sure he takes this
Speaker 4: on his next trip. The Performance package five point Oho
Speaker 4: Ultra is designed with fathers in mind, featuring this signature
Speaker 4: lawnmower five point oh. This Father's Day is also the
Speaker 4: perfect time for your old man to stop stealing his
Speaker 4: wife's nail clippers and finally have a kit on his
Speaker 4: own that will last him a lifetime. The Shear's three
Speaker 4: point zero is the five piece precision man's nail grooming
Speaker 4: kit that any father needs to stay on top of
Speaker 4: his self care, with professional grade stainless steel tools, sized
Speaker 4: and styled for the task at hand. That set of
Speaker 4: underwear he got for Christmas a decade ago definitely needs upgrading.
Speaker 4: And what better way than with manscapes Boxers two point oh.
Speaker 4: The Boxer's two point oh were designed with a simple
Speaker 4: mission to make the most comfortable boxers a man could buy.
Speaker 4: It starts with the Jewel Pouch, a dedicated space that
Speaker 4: cradles her stones in place, with a perforated performance fabric,
Speaker 4: sure a breathe ability. Get twenty percent off plus free
Speaker 4: shipping with the code beat at manscape dot com. That's
Speaker 4: twenty percent off plus free shipping with the code beat
Speaker 4: at manscape dot com. Never forget where you came from,
Speaker 4: if you know what I mean, Happy Father's Day from manscaped.
Speaker 1: Well, take a look at those ads right there. We
Speaker 1: love super beats and Brett doing that Manscape read now.
Speaker 1: We always love Michael Cohen's adreads. People love Cohen's adreids.
Speaker 1: But of course, while he's testifying, we're not going to
Speaker 1: have him cut adreads. You know it's funny, Dina Jordy
Speaker 1: runs our kind of ad department. My younger brother Jordy,
Speaker 1: and he's like, did Cohen, I don't know, I do
Speaker 1: the Jordy boy, See that won't make fun of my
Speaker 1: little brother. He goes, but did Cohen do the ad reads.
Speaker 1: I go, I think Cohen's a little busy this week.
Speaker 1: I think we will. I think, well, I'll do the
Speaker 1: ad reads. We'll let Brett do the ad reads this week.
Speaker 1: But don't worry, you'll get your Cohen adreads next week. Buttina.
Speaker 1: You you watch hundreds of trials every year where the
Speaker 1: defendant doesn't tweet at it or give speeches about it.
Speaker 1: And there is this overwhelming amount of evidence right now.
Speaker 1: And if the media was reporting on this, you know, objectively,
Speaker 1: I think they would at least point out the powerful
Speaker 1: nature of that evidence. And here's the thing that I
Speaker 1: want to say. No one knows what a jury's going
Speaker 1: to do, right. You don't know if you're going to
Speaker 1: have a single juror or two or three jurors that
Speaker 1: are kind of holding out, and if you're going to
Speaker 1: have you know, issues there you just you don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. But I can talk about the data,
Speaker 1: about the about the amount of evidence that's been put
Speaker 1: on by the prosecution. And to your point, the prosecution
Speaker 1: wasn't like this is the key phone call that you
Speaker 1: all need to focus on. This one minute and thirty
Speaker 1: six seconds, this is it. This is the moment there's
Speaker 1: a bunch of text messages and phone call and tweets
Speaker 1: and videos and posts and corroborating testimony and all and
Speaker 1: all of this around this time period. So talk about that, Dana, though,
Speaker 1: as just someone who is a legal analyst who observes
Speaker 1: these cases, the disparity I think, or just how the
Speaker 1: media right now is just covering this so oddly.
Speaker 3: I mean, most cases, there is always a he says,
Speaker 3: she said, component right here, it's maybe he said, he said,
Speaker 3: that's typical.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's really unusual to have a tape. That's
Speaker 2: why I keep on talking about the tapes.
Speaker 3: To have a tape where Donald Trump is talking about
Speaker 3: the hush money payment to Karen McDougall, and he's able
Speaker 3: to bring that in, the judge is allowing it to
Speaker 3: bring it in because it is so close to the
Speaker 3: Stormy Daniel's payment, and that kind of evidence you don't
Speaker 3: see in a typical trial, most typical trials that have
Speaker 3: to do with you know, he said, he said, you're
Speaker 3: you're forced to really just have these conversations between as
Speaker 3: I given this not just a he said, he said,
Speaker 3: but this, he said, with the corroborating testimony, and you
Speaker 3: know one thing too that I think that you kind
Speaker 3: of alluded to before about the how he ended, how
Speaker 3: the defense attorney ended with this anger, right, he was
Speaker 3: so upset at the end, and his questions kept on
Speaker 3: getting sustained the judged and allowed because they were really
Speaker 3: just like statements rather than questions, and these angry statements.
Speaker 3: I don't know what you think about this bend, but
Speaker 3: to me, I thought that was like strategically like a
Speaker 3: really bad move by the defense, because if I think
Speaker 3: I have just scored like the winning answer from my witness,
Speaker 3: like I have just blown open.
Speaker 2: My case, I would be happy with answer.
Speaker 3: I would have been kind of smug and been like, well,
Speaker 3: thank you, nothing more Michael Cohen. But instead he gets
Speaker 3: angry at Michael Cohen, which gives the impression to the
Speaker 3: jury that he didn't get what he wanted out of
Speaker 3: Michael Cohen, that he didn't actually get that blood bath
Speaker 3: moment that Ari says he wanted, because why be angry
Speaker 3: about it? Why be angry if you just elicited the
Speaker 3: one you know answer that would.
Speaker 2: Give you, you.
Speaker 3: Know, an acquittal from your defense. So to me, when
Speaker 3: he ends in that anger from the jury one, it
Speaker 3: makes it look personal because he started off with a
Speaker 3: Michael Cohen with a question about him as a lawyer, right,
Speaker 3: So he starts out the cross examination with this personal
Speaker 3: question about himself, and then he ends the cross this
Speaker 3: week angry at Michael Cohen, and that, like bookmark, shows
Speaker 3: how personal.
Speaker 2: It is for the lawyer.
Speaker 3: And to me, it's ironic because the lawyer is trying
Speaker 3: to say this is so personal to Michael Cohen, but
Speaker 3: Michael Cohen is the one who's cool and collected, and
Speaker 3: it's the lawyer who's making it personal.
Speaker 2: That's not a good look for the jury.
Speaker 3: He doesn't want to make it seem as if Donald
Speaker 3: Trump is harassing Michael Cohen because Michael Cohen isn't doing
Speaker 3: what he wants to do, and it's actually personal for
Speaker 3: his client because as you know, as a lawyer, how
Speaker 3: you act as a attorney, the jury usually attributes that
Speaker 3: to your client. So the lawyer turning it personal and
Speaker 3: then getting angry at the end I think kind of
Speaker 3: backfired in terms of them trying to make it seem
Speaker 3: that Michael Cohen was the one that was turning this personal.
Speaker 1: Let's assume for the sake of argument, though, that Cohen went, rogue.
Speaker 1: I think that's what they're trying to imply is making
Speaker 1: it up. He went absolutely, roke, Okay, why would Donald
Speaker 1: Trump then reimburse him? Why would Donald Trump then say
Speaker 1: that he was a signatory to the NDA? Wouldn't the
Speaker 1: next logical move that would happen if Cohen was making
Speaker 1: all of this up, as Donald Trump would be presented
Speaker 1: with some invoices and Trump would say, what, what the
Speaker 1: heck is this? We never had this conversation what you're paying?
Speaker 1: You're paying Stormy who Stormy one hundred? Porn star one
Speaker 1: hundred and what what is this? Or or you think
Speaker 1: Trump would go, huh so you want me to do
Speaker 1: an ND I've never heard this before because apparently we
Speaker 1: never had this conversation. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty thousand to the porn star. Okay, I
Speaker 1: don't know who she is, never had sex with her.
Speaker 1: Here you go, Michael, I'm going to reimburse you for it.
Speaker 1: Huh is that what you have to? Then take it
Speaker 1: right to the next logical step, because that's what they
Speaker 1: would want to do. Jury to believe that. Okay, so
Speaker 1: none of the calls happened. Then Cohen gave Trump checks
Speaker 1: for reimbursement or Alan Weiselberg did, and Trump's own team.
Speaker 1: There was other eyes on this, right, Trump's CFO, Trump's controller,
Speaker 1: and Trump's like they think we're all that stupid palm.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to
Speaker 1: a random porn star because I've never had conversations about this,
Speaker 1: right to me, when you have people on like CNN
Speaker 1: and MSNBC saying that this was a moment, okay, well
Speaker 1: then go to the next logical step, because then you're
Speaker 1: just basically treating the jury like they're idiots or am
Speaker 1: I right? No?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, And again with that tweet where he after the
Speaker 3: fact is like, oh, this is like a reimbursement, this
Speaker 3: is and voice for an NDA. Like to your point,
Speaker 3: he never says that I didn't do this. He's just
Speaker 3: trying to like make it legal in his mind, like, oh,
Speaker 3: it was just this reimbursement, you know, for NDA. And interestingly,
Speaker 3: you know, even outside the courtroom, he still actually doesn't
Speaker 3: really say that he didn't know anything about it. We
Speaker 3: heard the other day where he's like, oh, just a
Speaker 3: payment to a lawyer, right, as if because you have
Speaker 3: a lawyer involved, everything is legal, but he still really
Speaker 3: doesn't say that I had nothing to do about it.
Speaker 3: He always tries to say it's either legal because it's
Speaker 3: an NDA, or it's legal because he did it through
Speaker 3: a lawyer. But he even gave Michael Cohen a bonus
Speaker 3: that year. Right, So that's why this case is so
Speaker 3: strong because there are so many people who testified about
Speaker 3: this scheme.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: We have Howard afterwards saying like what after Trump has
Speaker 3: won in twenty sixteen, like, what have we done? Because
Speaker 3: what they have done is catch and kill stories to
Speaker 3: help him win an election. You have Trump, you know,
Speaker 3: tweeting and recording so clearly okay with deal, And like
Speaker 3: you said, he pays him afterwards, He pays them, and
Speaker 3: he even gives him a bonus afterwards. And then he
Speaker 3: tweets afterwards too that this wasn't a rebursement for the NDA.
Speaker 3: And he's outside the courthouse really just trying to justify it,
Speaker 3: but not saying that he had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 3: And that is really the shame of how it's not
Speaker 3: being covered, that it's not being covered, how strong the
Speaker 3: case is, how much Trump himself, you know, kind of
Speaker 3: admits to it outside the courthouse, even even to this day,
Speaker 3: like today, your point, he just talks about how it's
Speaker 3: an NDA.
Speaker 2: He never actually says I had nothing to do with this.
Speaker 1: And there's court filings where Trump talks about how this
Speaker 1: was a reimbursement to Cohen and that's why he's the
Speaker 1: signatory on the NDA, because Trump tried to enforce the
Speaker 1: NDA in his litigation with Stormy. Like, it's some very
Speaker 1: basic obvious facts, right, I mean, Trump and Cohen were
Speaker 1: shouldered to shoulder before Cohen was rated by the FBI,
Speaker 1: and there are like lots of documents out there corroborating
Speaker 1: that there was a conversation and multiple conversations that ultimately
Speaker 1: took place, and ultimately Donald Trump's signature. Look, if you
Speaker 1: were to say Trump's signature is not on any of
Speaker 1: these checks, that he had no clue and it was
Speaker 1: just Weiselberg who signed off, and Trump's signature is on
Speaker 1: these checks. Trump's voice is on the audio. Trump's words
Speaker 1: are on the tweets. Trump's statements are in the speech
Speaker 1: Trump saying this was a reimbursement, are in the legal documents.
Speaker 1: It is there, and so on closing, if I'm the prosecution.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it is there. And what the defense
Speaker 1: has tried to say to you is offend your intelligence
Speaker 1: and say that none of this has happened. None of
Speaker 1: it happened. Basically, according to the defense, Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: presented with a check to pay a porn star who
Speaker 1: he barely knew, and he just said, yeah, out of
Speaker 1: the charitable view towards Stormy, I just I'm gonna pay
Speaker 1: you Cohen one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to pay her.
Speaker 1: And That's what I'm going to do. And that's what
Speaker 1: the jury would have to believe if that moment was this, Aha,
Speaker 1: Perry Mason. It's the opposite of a Perry Mason moment.
Speaker 1: It's anyway. Finally, Dina, let me ask you this though.
Speaker 1: I thought the point that you made on the last
Speaker 1: beatdown we hosted together about the message that this is
Speaker 1: sending to the jurors, where you have these maga Republican
Speaker 1: Congress members showing up, you know, all kind of dressed
Speaker 1: in their trumpy uniforms and trying to, I guess, intimidate
Speaker 1: people in the court, intimidate witnesses, and it kind of
Speaker 1: undermines the central theme, Well, there's no theme. It undermines
Speaker 1: whatever defense they're trying to put on. When you don't
Speaker 1: see Milania there or any of Trump's other kids other
Speaker 1: than Eric you know, who showed up for a few
Speaker 1: days so far, and you see all of these maga
Speaker 1: Republican congress members, it just also look, Congress is supposed
Speaker 1: to be a coequal branch of government. Although I think
Speaker 1: Lauren Bobert thinks that Congress has multiple branches of government.
Speaker 1: I don't think she ever took a government class. But
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be a co equal branch. Even if
Speaker 1: you have an executive who's from your party in power,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to be a check on that. If you're
Speaker 1: in Congress, right, you're supposed to be a check on
Speaker 1: the power of the executive. So to see these maga
Speaker 1: Republicans just show up like this and just behave like
Speaker 1: weirdo cult members. I don't care what political party you're from,
Speaker 1: you should look at this and say, Wow, this is
Speaker 1: just bringing us so much shame as Americans. This is humiliating,
Speaker 1: this is degrading. How are these people acting like this?
Speaker 1: I'll give you the last word of the idea.
Speaker 3: I mean absolutely it goes against his defense that he's
Speaker 3: a family guy. But also there was testimony to the jury,
Speaker 3: you know that Michael Cohen talks about how after the raid,
Speaker 3: you know, President Trump, you know, when he was president
Speaker 3: at the time, says basically, I'm going to use my
Speaker 3: presidential power to make this go away, like you don't
Speaker 3: worry about it. I'm going to have my attorney general
Speaker 3: take care of this. The jury heard that, and then
Speaker 3: they see the stream of the GOP politicians coming into
Speaker 3: this case. One, it looks bad because it makes them
Speaker 3: look not like a family guy because it's political. But also,
Speaker 3: you know, if there are any jurors on that case
Speaker 3: who care about our democracy, they I mean, that was
Speaker 3: a really disturbing statement, the fact that the Trump was
Speaker 3: willing to use that presidential power and then the politicians
Speaker 3: are coming in, which shows that he's kind of like
Speaker 3: still willing to abuse their power. All those politicians are
Speaker 3: abusing their power. They did not get elected to show
Speaker 3: up in a criminal case. They got elected to serve
Speaker 3: their people who do not live in that area. So
Speaker 3: they are abusing their stature and their power in that case.
Speaker 3: And that is also a message that's going to a jury,
Speaker 3: Trump is willing to abuse their power. And if he's
Speaker 3: not checked in this case, if he's not held to account,
Speaker 3: who is going to hold him to account? All of
Speaker 3: his colleagues are willing to abuse their power. So this
Speaker 3: almost you're feeding into this idea that this case becomes
Speaker 3: a political abuse political power case. If I were on
Speaker 3: that jury, I would be bothered about that point. And
Speaker 3: I can imagine there are a few who are really
Speaker 3: bothered about that comment. And you know who else is
Speaker 3: watching this case? The Supreme Court, and you know how
Speaker 3: you and I watched the life analysis of the Community case,
Speaker 3: and Justice Kintanji Brown Jackson said, we shouldn't be worried
Speaker 3: about chilling you know, the next president too much. We
Speaker 3: should be worried about not chilling them enough. And when
Speaker 3: you see all of these GOP people, including the Speaker
Speaker 3: of the House who's number three in the country, show
Speaker 3: up in a way that can be seen as dury,
Speaker 3: intimidation and certainly being seen as trying to bolster, you know,
Speaker 3: somebody running for office, I would think if I were
Speaker 3: her to the Justice, I would go back to my
Speaker 3: colleagues who are on the fence about this community thing
Speaker 3: and say, this is why we need to make sure
Speaker 3: that Donald Trump does not have immunity, because look is
Speaker 3: what is happening, and this is just the beginning. So
Speaker 3: I think that audience the Supreme Court, I think they're watching,
Speaker 3: and I think that takeaway of having all those representatives
Speaker 3: there shows how dangerous Trump is to this country if
Speaker 3: we don't pull them to account for his actions.
Speaker 1: Thank you for co hosting this political beatdown. I want
Speaker 1: to figure out we gotta have a Dina show on
Speaker 1: the Midas Touch network. You and I have privately discussed it.
Speaker 1: We gotta have a Dina emoji, and we gotta have
Speaker 1: a and we gotta have a Dina show, whether it's
Speaker 1: a Ben and Dina show. I do a lot of shows,
Speaker 1: but I really want to do a Dina and Ben.
Speaker 1: It would be Dina and Ben, not Ben Ben. Let's
Speaker 1: do it. It would definitely be Dina and Ben, if
Speaker 1: if if and when we do it, but we will
Speaker 1: be doing it. I just got to I'm getting married
Speaker 1: this week, and I got a lot going on. And
Speaker 1: then and then after the trial, you and I were
Speaker 1: going to do a Dina Ben show or definitely a
Speaker 1: Dina show. We'll figure we'll figure it all out. I
Speaker 1: know the Midas Mighty love you, and I see in
Speaker 1: the comments how excited they are every time you're co hosting.
Speaker 1: And I want to give a shout out to to
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, who's doing a and I know he's probably
Speaker 1: not watching this at all right now, but I'm sending
Speaker 1: it to the future, Michael Cohen when he does watch
Speaker 1: in the future. We're really proud of you, you know.
Speaker 1: We know that you are confidently and calmly going through
Speaker 1: the facts. We know that Trump's lawyers are trying to
Speaker 1: provoke you. We know that corporate media is trying to
Speaker 1: provoke you. Corporate media is jealous of the platform that
Speaker 1: you have where you can bring your message directly to
Speaker 1: the people. And we're proud of you here though at
Speaker 1: the Mitas Touch Network, for I'm doing what Trump's afraid
Speaker 1: to do. Trump's a coward. Trump's not going to take
Speaker 1: the stand. You know, Cohen has consistently taken the stand,
Speaker 1: subjected himself to cross examination, answered the questions truthfully. He's
Speaker 1: you know, he recognizes the mistakes he's made in the past.
Speaker 1: And as you have Donald Trump sitting there like a
Speaker 1: complete and total coward, that he is and Cohen up
Speaker 1: there taking the stand. I think that it's an important distinction.
Speaker 1: So Dina, thank you. Dina and Bencho coming soon and
Speaker 1: thanks every Thanks everybody for watching patreon dot com slash
Speaker 1: Political Beatdown. Great place to go patreon dot com slash
Speaker 1: Political Beatdown, and tonight at eight eastern five Pacific, make
Speaker 1: sure you tune in for the brother Show, The Midas
Speaker 1: Touch Podcast with Me and my brothers. Thanks everybody for watching,
Speaker 1: Thanks Dina. As always, that's Political Beatdown for today. See
Speaker 1: you next week.