Trouble in Paradise: Is Vivek Ramaswamy Leaving DOGE? What We Know
Government by HatetheSwamp     January 20, 2025 2:56 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [1 views]

The lies the haters believe about Trump and MAGAs
Mythology by HatetheSwamp     January 19, 2025 5:55 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [134 views]

With this Gaza cease fire, Trump's presidency is already more consequential than the Former Trucker's
President by HatetheSwamp     January 19, 2025 3:20 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (3 comments) [45 views]

Is there any question as to which leader Trump strives to emulate?
Personality by Curt_Anderson     January 19, 2025 12:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (9 comments) [109 views]

That "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden" doddering old fool decrees the ERA to be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution
Government by HatetheSwamp     January 18, 2025 8:36 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (11 comments) [120 views]

Ana Kasparian on the Megyn Kelly podcast
Media by HatetheSwamp     January 17, 2025 3:17 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (18 comments) [138 views]

Trump, Vance official portraits released
Arts & Artists by HatetheSwamp     January 18, 2025 3:54 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [64 views]

Who will "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" pardon before Mr Tangerine Man places his hand on the Bible
Games & Toys by HatetheSwamp     January 18, 2025 5:20 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [45 views]

CNN loses $5,000,000 in defamation case... punitive penalties are still to come
Media by HatetheSwamp     January 17, 2025 1:14 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [66 views]

Missing my dad...
Family by HatetheSwamp     January 17, 2025 7:00 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [102 views]

Will the defense call Robert Costello to destroy Michael Cohen? By HatetheSwamp May 18, 2024 4:50 am Category: Crime (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

I post this because I'm certain that those who worship Curt's Holy Trinity and who believe in po's metaphorical Rachel, haven't heard a d@ng thing about this.

Keehee hoo ha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.

Intentionally misinformed voters, eh?

Comments Start Below

by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 8:08 am Costello offered to testify. Of course if he does the prosecution can cross examine him. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 8:54 am As it should and must be, there, Curt. Being a man of the progressive Swampcult and a worshiper at the altar of your Holy Trinity, as you are, you probably don't even know that this all started when Costello offered blistering testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. "...while Trump’s trial had a day off, Costello was brought by top Trump allies in Congress to a committee hearing at which he thrashed Cohen as a serial liar — and accused him of repeatedly lying on the stand. “I read Michael Cohen’s testimony from yesterday’s trial in New York,” Costello told the committee on Wednesday. “Virtually every statement he made about me was another lie.” On Wednesday, Costello told lawmakers that Cohen was “absolutely manic” when they met in April 2018, pacing back and forth “like a tiger in a cage.” Costello said Cohen had told him that only two days earlier he had been on the roof of the Regency Hotel “seriously considering jumping off, committing suicide because he couldn’t handle the pressure of the legal problems he saw coming his way.” Because it was a House Committee, Dems were free to take their shots at Costello. They whined about the truth that the GOPs brought him to DC to speak this truth while Cohen was on the stand... but, they weren't able to smear Costello's integrity or believability. Still, Curt, I'm certain that Judge Merchan's instructions to the jury will require it to convict Trump... and will be overturned on appeal. reuters.com by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 9:15 am If I were a prosecutor I would ask Costello if Cohen was honest. (“No”) Does Cohen have a reputation for honesty or not? (I assume Costello would say Cohen is not considered honest). My aha! moment would be so Donald Trump for more than a decade employed a lawyer with a reputation for dishonesty. by Indy! on May 18, 2024 9:16 am So you don't watch Fox, but 95% of your videos are from Fox. Since you're not watching Fox - who's picking them out for you? 🤔 by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 9:31 am Curt, I think that's irrelevant. Costello claims to have witnesses for all of his testimony. To this point, the prosecution was setting up a he said/he said with Trump and Cohen, counting of progressive jurors to chose to practice deranged TrumpHate. The defense busted Cohen t'other day for lies. using his own texts. Now? Costello appears to be able to destroy Cohen's veracity. Still, it's more than likely that the judge's instructions to the jury will demand a guilty verdict. That's what my Goobers are saying. The question is becoming if, even among moderate and independent common sense voters, Trump may benefit from a guilty verdict in this trial. More and more, that's what I anticipate. by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 9:51 am HtS, Can we agree that if Robert Costello does not testify that Blanche and his team deemed Costello‘s testimony would not be credible or helpful to Donald Trump? The prosecution’s case is not reliant upon the testimony of Michael Cohen. That’s why they had corroborating witnesses like David Pecker and Hope Hicks testifying. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 10:42 am I absolutely disagree with your analysis of the trial. Well, my Legal Goobers do. How might Hope Hicks help the prosecution? What I'd say is that, if the defense doesn't call Costello it's because Cohen had already been depantsed under cross examination and if the jury's going to find Trump guilty after that, Costello wouldn't change things. I'll repeat. I expect Judge Merchan to give the jury instructions that will give it no choice but to convict. That's a common opinion among the Legal Goobers. by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 10:57 am "I expect Judge Merchan to give the jury instructions that will give it no choice but to convict. That's a common opinion among the Legal Goobers." ---HtS That's bizarre. Just yesterday you were saying that none of them even know what Trump is accused of..., but the jury does/will know? No matter what instructions Merchan gives, the defense will remind the jury that if they have any reasonable doubts they cannot convict. One of your favorite legal minds predicted a hung jury. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 11:23 am They still don't know. That gives the judge free reign to tell the jury what he wants. Do you know what the crime is? by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 11:37 am From Costello's congressional testimony. Oy vey!: View Video by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 11:52 am Yes, I know what crimes Donald Trump has been charged with. en.wikipedia.org by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 12:30 pm Trump faces 34 felony charges of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal other crimes What pb's Legal Goobers say is that Bragg hasn't specified the "other crimes." Help 'em out. Please. So far, they say, the judge and the prosecutor and winging it. So,... Please. Chime in. by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 12:42 pm This is GREAT news for your side! In that case all the defense needs to do is say what Trump repeats at every courtroom break, "there is no crime", specified or otherwise. On the other hand, maybe the legal analysts who appear on conservative media are intentionally obtuse. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 12:55 pm No doubt. Jonathan Turley and Andy McCarthy are dolts. So. Splain. What's t'other crime? In furtherance of what? by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 1:26 pm I didn't say they were dolts. I said they were being purposely obtuse. Obvious crimes include the campaign finance violations, for which Michael Cohen already served time in prison. It wasn't Cohen's election campaign for which the violations took place, it was for "Individual #1". The hush money payments were mischaracterized for tax purposes. Whose taxes were at issue do you imagine? Then there was the complex scheme to illegally disguise reimbursement checks made out to Cohen for the Daniels payment. All of this falls under falsified business records. The 34 counts are the individual instances of each time Trump falsified business records. Trump's defense seems to be that it is true that those crimes happened but it was done without Trump's involvement or permission. In other words, Michael Cohen and Alan Weisselberg went rogue and acted on their own on behalf of Trump. by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 1:41 pm The conundrum for Robert Costello and the Trump defense is like one of the riddles in which a man in the story is known to be liar. Costello has to make the case that Cohen was honest when he said he didn't have anything on Trump (at the time at least). Yet Cohen is known to lie. Incidentally, Costello was not be truthful when he testified that he was Cohen's attorney. Cohen never hired or paid Costello for legal services. If he was Cohen's attorney and is now blabbing what Cohen told him---presumably under the protection of attorney/client privilege---Costello could be disbarred. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 1:49 pm Just curious. I'm careful to receive insight from legal analysts who have a demonstrated ability to think clearly without simply believing to be true what they want to be true. I watch The Five on Fox fairly regularly and, therefore, can't avoid hearing Judge Jeanine saying every day that the prosecutor is a deranged TrumpHating fool and that the judge is a political hack. My three Legal Goobers bring an understanding much more profound than that. Based on the Goobers' predictions about the 14th Amendment attempts to keep Trump off of the ballot... (ole #1 essentially wrote the Court's decision as soon as arguments were concluded). He got it exactly right... and what the Court would do with Trump's immunity appeal, I'll continue to trust them... ...and suspect that your Holy Trinity analysis may just be too easy for your progressive gang to believe. But, we'll see. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 1:53 pm The Costello being disbarred thing occurred to me, too. If that was in play, though, the House Judiciary Committee Dems surely would have made that point when he testified. It's too bad that our Ivy League law school prof is busy with other things. I'm sure po would set us straight. by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 2:25 pm Disbarment would only a possibility if Costello was Cohen’s attorney. As an attorney he would certainly know that. It’s probably even illegal for an attorney to betray a client confidence. Therefore, I don’t believe Costello was Michael Cohen’s attorney. Costello is an ally of team Trump, of which Michael Cohen was no doubt aware. Costello is or perhaps was a friend of Rudy Giuliani. He is suing Giuliani because Rudy failed to pay his legal fees. Costello apparently lied in his congressional testimony when he said he was Cohen’s lawyer. If Costello testifies I would not be surprised if the prosecution brought that up. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 2:33 pm Did the Dems on the Judiciary Committee pounce on Costello for his lie? by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 2:40 pm It may not have occurred to them at the time that Costello lied about being Cohen's attorney. I didn't know it before I watched the last YouTube you posted. Also the members of Congress seem to have their questions and talking points written out in advance and they don't like to divert from their script. Or maybe they realized it and they wanted Costello to produce enough rope to hang himself. by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 3:08 pm Based on my last few observations that Robert Costello has questionable ethics, integrity and credibility, I predict he won't be a defense witness for Trump. So maybe he won't "destroy Michael Cohen" after all. by HatetheSwamp on May 18, 2024 3:17 pm As he tells his story, there's a witness for his account. by Curt_Anderson on May 18, 2024 3:27 pm "As he tells his story, there's a witness for his account." ---HtS So do you expect Costello to testify? Anyway his story is that Cohen said he didn't have any incriminating evidence against Trump. Two problems: 1. Cohen, knowing Costello was in cahoots with Trump, may not have told Costello what he really knew (or maybe would learn later). 2. Costello is relying on what Cohen, an admitted perjurer, told him. Not knowing who this witness might be, if they were to testify, it's another prosecution opportunity to question the credibility of a defense witness. Anyway, saying what Cohen said to Costello might be hearsay therefore no admissible. by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2024 3:37 am I'm not an Ivy League law school professor and I didn't clerk for John Jay and I haven't heard from any of the Goobers about it. But, I don't think Costello will be called, though the way he wasn't stymied by the House Dems makes me think he wouldn't give up much on cross. And, I just have to say that your deranged TrumpHate is uniquely hopeful. When Trump says name wrong, you chortle and suppose that it's Trump who's vulnerable on the issue of mental acuity. ASUFUTIMAEHAEHFUTBW! End of quote. Repeat the line. God save the Queen, man!... ...and, and if you have been getting anything close to fair coverage of the trial, you know that Cohen has been embarrassed as his many lies have been exposed. There's no way that I can see that the jury will give him the benefit of the doubt in a he says, he said with Costello. But, we'll see. Four more years, pause. View Video by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2024 7:09 am Just caught Legal Goober #2 on Fox News Sunday. He had two takes. 1. Cohen has already been destroyed on cross, with Monday's testimony to come. 2. Cohen has done so poorly that it's possible that the Manhattan jury can no longer be counted on to rubber stamp Bragg's deranged TrumpHate. He didn't comment on the likelihood that the defense would call Costello. by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2024 10:38 am The Trump gang's getting just a little overconfident, perhaps? View Video by Curt_Anderson on May 19, 2024 10:55 am Shannon Bream briefly mentioned attorney-client privilege, as we discussed yesterday. Trump attorney Will Sharf, who looks rather sickly, is channeling Joe Namath before Super Bowl III by predicting a Trump victory in this trial. I don't think so. He also implied that the defense did such a good job in roughing up Cohen that Costello's testimony isn't needed. I suspect that Costello is working for Trump by "testifying" outside the courtroom in hopes of influencing the unsequestered jury. BTW, did you notice Sharf's weird, unnatural "smile" as he was introduced and at the end of the interview? by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2024 11:21 am Later on, they had a former Federal prosecutor on with Turley and that guy confidently predicted a directed verdict. Neither Bream nor Turley bit. But, GOPs are speaking that language more and more. Cohen got absolutely, clearly busted in a direct lie about the crucial moment in the case and the thinking is that even Judge Merchan can't be so obviously in the tank for the Dems. pb can't go that far. But, Goober #3 is predicting a hung jury. He's a retired prosecutor in New York. And, his judgement is fairly cautious. What might happen in the polls if "the orange turd" escapes without a conviction!!!!!? As the Former Truck Driver says, ASUFUTIMAEHAEHFUTBW! by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2024 3:12 pm pb's Legal Goober #2 appears at 3:50. Thoughtful. Reasoned. View Video by Curt_Anderson on May 19, 2024 3:52 pm We will see soon enough what the jury decides. I don't believe the prosecution is as reliant on Michael Cohen's testimony to make their case as the FOX News pundits seem to think. I think the jury will use logic and commonsense. Is the defense theory of the case reasonable? Namely that Cohen that took out a second mortgage on his house and paid hush money to Stormy Daniels all on his own then was repaid by Trump, but somehow it was all unbeknownst to Trump? A person would have to pretty gullible to swallow that story. Unfortunately for Trump, I suspect that these New Yorkers are pretty sophisticated. by HatetheSwamp on May 19, 2024 4:04 pm Here's the thing. If... EFFINif... Trump's guilty of all of that, the statute of limitations has expired... long ago. That's why the "in furtherance of another crime" matters, according to my Legal Goobers. AND, it has to be proven that the other crime has to have been, specifically and solely, to win the election... according to the Goobers. That's why the feds didn't bring these charges. It's why the Federal Election Commission didn't touch this. Still, for myself, I believe that Judge Merchan is so consumed by deranged TrumpHate that he won't include this in his jury instructions. And, why, some time after the election, Trump's appeal will be upheld. by Curt_Anderson on May 19, 2024 4:23 pm HtS, You are all over the place. So far you say it will be a hung jury; the jury won't believe Cohen so they will find Trump not guilty; the statute of limitations expired; Trump will be found guilty (because the jurors all hate Trump) but he will win on appeal; Judge Merchan will give the jury faulty instructions and Trump will appeal. Did I cover then all? For me, I think Trump will found guilty on most but not all counts. His appeal will be rejected. by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2024 12:25 am I don't say that there will be a hung jury. I say that my Legal Goober #3 thinks there will be a hung jury. The statute of limitations has indeed expired on what YOU think Trump is guilty of. For Trump to be guilty of a federal crime, as you have noted, all of that would have to have been done in support of "another crime." Prosecutors have not yet specified what that other crime is. What I myself have predicted is that Merchan will give faulty instructions and that, because of the many atrocious decisions Merchan has made during the trial, the guilty verdict will be overturned. As for you?, I think your deranged TrumpHate is consistently and intensely hopeful. Good for you. Some of this, we'll know very soon. by HatetheSwamp on May 20, 2024 12:25 am I don't say that there will be a hung jury. I say that my Legal Goober #3 thinks there will be a hung jury. The statute of limitations has indeed expired on what YOU think Trump is guilty of. For Trump to be guilty of a federal crime, as you have noted, all of that would have to have been done in support of "another crime." Prosecutors have not yet specified what that other crime is. What I myself have predicted is that Merchan will give faulty instructions and that, because of the many atrocious decisions Merchan has made during the trial, the guilty verdict will be overturned. As for you?, I think your deranged TrumpHate is consistently and intensely hopeful. Good for you. Some of this, we'll know very soon. by Curt_Anderson on May 20, 2024 12:36 pm Prosecution rests in Trump trial as defense calls Robert Costello. by Indy! on May 21, 2024 12:24 pm Call me when Trump's hubris level rises to the point where he decides to testify for his own "defense". by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2024 12:36 pm The "crooked judge" created parameters for cross examination that made it impossible for Trump to decide to take the stand. by Indy! on May 21, 2024 3:33 pm Sounds like he's "crooked" for Trump. by HatetheSwamp on May 21, 2024 3:34 pm Alan Dershowitz. The trial is a "travesty of justice." View Video by Indy! on May 21, 2024 3:38 pm The pedophile Douche is a Trumper. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page