The stench of deceit hung in the air as I sat in the front row of a Manhattan courtroom.
Seated on the witness stand, no more than a few feet from me, I watched in disbelief as Donald Trump‘s former lawyer Michael Cohen told the jury one seeming lie after another.
When asked by prosecutors on Monday whether he would financially benefit if Trump were convicted of falsifying business records to hide an alleged hush money payment to protect his 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen denied it.
That is demonstrably false.
Cohen is shopping around a reality TV show to capitalize on his newfound fame. He has admitted to making more than $3 million on anti-Trump books and podcasts and sells merchandise portraying the former president behind bars.
All of these enterprises would be undermined by a Trump acquittal.
Then there is Cohen’s confession that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organizations by deceitfully overcharging for his services.
I wouldn’t buy a used car from this man, let alone rely on his testimony to send a presidential candidate to prison.
Most significantly, I haven’t heard any evidence that Trump committed a crime.
The only testimony that even remotely speaks to the accusation is Cohen’s claim that Trump approved the alleged payoff to Stormy Daniels during a 96-second phone call.
But Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, got Cohen to admit that that phone conversation was, at least in part, about a prank caller who had been harassing Cohen.
‘You had enough time in one minute and 36 seconds to update… about all the harassing phone calls and the update on Stormy Daniels?’ Blanche asked.
‘I believe that I also spoke to Mr. Trump and told him everything regarding Stormy Daniels was being worked on and it’s going to be resolved,’ Cohen answered.
‘We are not asking for your belief,’ Blanche replied. ‘This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.’
Indeed, they don’t.
They want to hear the truth.
Never in my 60 years of practicing law and teaching and writing about the U.S. legal system have I seen such a weak criminal fraud case.
Whether a jury of 12 New Yorkers will believe Cohen, a fabulist and admitted thief, is impossible to tell. But there is no doubt in my mind that the judge in this trial should not allow it to continue.
Instead, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan should throw it out of court – and rule that Cohen’s testimony is so unreliable that the jury should not even consider it.
This judge has the power to do just that. ‘If the charges are not legit, he should acquit,’ to paraphrase a mantra from the OJ Simpson case.
But he won’t.
For even more shocking than the pathetic flaws of this case is the palpable bias that this judge holds against Trump.
After the defense called their key witness, former Cohen legal adviser Robert Costello, Judge Merchan made ruling after ruling denying Costello the ability to speak – inexplicably dismissing his testimony as hearsay and irrelevant.
I was shocked, along with the other lawyers watching in the audience.
Under the 6th Amendment, a defendant has a right to confront his accuser and that is done through the testimony of others.
Judge Merchan denied Trump that right by unfairly limiting Costello’s testimony.
But the judge truly revealed his apparent unhinged prejudice against Trump when he exploded after Costello, a lawyer himself, expressed his surprise over the mystifying rulings.
Merchan lost control over the perceived slight and angrily ordered the court police to clear the room.
I was never asked to leave, so I stayed. I wish that the public could have seen what I witnessed – because I believe the judge’s bias against Trump came through loud and clear.
‘Do you raise your eyebrows at me?’ Merchan shouted at Costello. ‘Did you stare at me?’
He sounded like a paranoid schizophrenic. A nut on the street. The psycho in the film Taxi Driver.
Then Merchan threatened to exclude all of Costello’s testimony against Cohen from the trial.
I was flabbergasted.
For one, Costello’s behavior wasn’t egregious and he is allowed to act surprised.
But more than that, the idea that a judge would punish Trump by denying him an opportunity to present evidence over the actions of a witness is preposterous. It’s unethical. It’s unconstitutional.
Trump is not responsible for Costello’s behavior.
It was one of the most shocking demonstrations of bias by a judge I’ve ever seen.
So, could Trump be convicted despite all of this? Of course, he can.
The Manhattan pool consists largely of people who voted against Trump and don’t want him to be elected in 2024.
But the weakness of the prosecution’s case and the jaw-droppingly pervasive bias exhibited by this judge against Trump will provide him with an excellent opportunity to appeal if he is found guilty.
The only remaining question is if a New York State court will accept a request for an expedited appeal – so any apparent miscarriage of justice can be reversed before the American people cast their ballots.
