The Brew: Will Judge in ‘Hush Money’ Case Issue Directed Verdict Declaring Trump Not Guilty?

Would be a good idea, especially with the Defense having Cohen's former attorney set to testify that Cohen repeatedly copped to having "nothing on Trump."

"Yeah, I may be free next week after all. No, I don't know if there will be an interpreter at the debates to translate Biden."."

By Al Perrotta Published on May 16, 2024

Happy Thursday! We’re going to make your day, pal.

(Yes, I’m poking fun at Joe Biden going all Clint Eastwood on Donald Trump yesterday. Does anybody even say “pal” anymore?)

Trump Trial Resumes With Further Cross-Examination of Cohen. Could There Be a Directed Verdict?

Today marks a potentially huge day in Trump’s so-called “hush money” trial. After the defense wraps up cross-examining Michael Cohen, who makes online Nigerian princes seem legit by comparison, the prosecution is expected to rest. When that happens, the defense is expected to immediately request a directed verdict.

In other words, the judge could simply say the prosecution hasn’t made its case and declare Trump “not guilty” on the spot.

But Judge Juan Merchan is so in bed with the Democrats, he might as well have an “I Heart DNC” tattoo. Declaring Trump “not guilty” would mean he can forget about getting invited to any Manhattan parties or weekend retreats at Martha’s Vineyard. And Father’s Day with his high-priced Democratic operative daughter, whose clients want Trump’s head on a plate? Merchan would be lucky if he gets a pair of dirty socks from her if he exonerates Trump.

However, the simple fact remains that the prosecution has not even made clear what crime Trump has allegedly committed, let alone demonstrated he actually committed it. If Merchan had an ounce of integrity, he’d bounce the case.

But even assuming he’s all in with Team Biden — from a strictly political point of view — isn’t it possible he issues a directed verdict so Dems can cut their losses? Get rid of this stinker case that is backfiring in the polls? The one which even swing-state voters are telling CNN “disgusts” them? Isn’t it better to have Merchan quickly declare Trump “not guilty” and have the media quickly move on than risk continuing to benefit Trump and possibly ending up with a hung jury — or God forbid, an acquittal? Can you imagine what would happen if a New York jury acquitted Trump?

It’s one thing for a judge to declare Trump “not guilty.” But “we, the people of a city that supports Biden and hates Trump, find him innocent”?! Fuhgettaboutit!

True. It’s probably a longshot that Merchan will pull the plug, but don’t be shocked if it does happen.

Former Cohen Attorney Undercuts His Story

Let’s give you another reason that moving forward with District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump would prove a disaster to the Democrats’ lawfare effort. Michael Cohen’s former attorney, Robert Costello, dropped some bombs on Congress yesterday. The House Judiciary Committee tweeted the takeaways.

  1. Michael Cohen didn’t actually believe the Stormy Daniels allegation.
  2. Cohen paid Stormy Daniels all on his own.
  3. President Trump had nothing to do with it.

According to Costello, Cohen paid Daniels on his own initiative to get back in Trump’s good graces after Trump nixed him for a White House gig. Also, contrary to testimony he gave saying Trump paid off Daniels to protect his campaign, Cohen told his attorney he acted to protect Trump’s wife, Melania.

Further, Costello says Cohen told him, “I swear to God, Bob. I don’t have anything on Donald Trump,” and the kicker, “‘Guys, I want you to remember, I will do whatever the **** I have to do, I will never spend one day in jail.”

After Cohen switched lawyers, Costello waived his attorney-client privilege and gave his evidence to the feds, who had been hoping to use Cohen’s newfound claims against Trump. However, according to Costello, the feds decided not to move forward with charges against Trump based on Cohen’s claims because he was such an unreliable witness. Alvin Bragg has no such scruples. Neither does the Biden DOJ that sent their #3 person to help prosecute the case, despite knowing what Costello had on Cohen.

The Debating Game

On yesterday’s Al’s Afternoon Tea, we talked about Joe Biden’s debate challenge to Trump, and Trump’s quick acceptance. If you missed it, Trump and Biden’s first debate will be June 27, moderated by CNN — the same network that fired its president because he dared allow Trump to hold a televised townhall on it. The second debate will be September 10, moderated by ABC News — the same people who bring Clinton fixer George Stephanopoulos and The View into your living room. Why not just have Dr. Jill moderate?

We’re still doing spit-takes over Biden claiming he beat Trump in both 2020 debates. It’s kind of like his claim to have been a civil rights activist or getting arrested while going to see Nelson Mandela or interest rates being 9% when he took office or … well, we don’t want to take up your whole weekend. While Trump’s constant interruptions during the 2020 debates were off-putting, Biden spent both debates lying. For example, he famously claimed Hunter’s laptop was Russian propaganda, Hunter made no money from the Chinese, and that he, himself, never made a “single penny” from a foreign source.

I wonder how many of Trump’s interruptions came after Biden said something that was demonstrably false?

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

Plus, it’s easy to “win” a debate when the refs are on your side. In both debates, the moderators ran interference to protect Biden. A prime example was when moderator Kristen Welker jumped in to stop Trump from pressing Biden on the fresh allegations from Hunter’s business associate Tony Bobulinski that “The Big Guy” was deeply involved in deals with the Communist Chinese.

Check out my recap of that debate, which contains an astonishing list of Biden’s whoppers that night.

While Trump, thus far, appears to have accepted all of Biden’s conditions, The Federalist suggests Trump should make a demand of his own: If the mic of the candidate not answering the question are turned off to prevent interruptions and cross-talk, then the moderator’s mic should be turned off as well. Plus they should be prohibited from interrupting or so-called “fact-checking.”

And ban earpieces, both for Biden and the moderators.

Along The Stream

Coming up at 9 a.m. Eastern, John Zmirak tells us why “Our Masters in Washington Are Panicking Over the Possible Slave Revolt Coming in November.”

 

Al Perrotta is The Stream’s Washington bureau chief, coauthor with John Zmirak of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration, and coauthor of the counterterrorism memoir Hostile Intent: Protecting Yourself Against Terrorism.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
Military Photo of the Day: E-2 Hawkeye Launches
Tom Sileo
More from The Stream
Connect with Us