Trump Fights to STOP Michael COHEN Testimony in New York Criminal Trial

Trump’s defense is gearing up for the New York criminal trial and submitted a massive motion in limine focused in large part on precluding or limiting Michael Cohen’s expected testimony in the Bragg Prosecution.


 

In this report:

In the high-stakes arena of New York’s criminal courts, a legal battle of significant magnitude is unfolding as Donald Trump’s legal team mounts a vigorous defense ahead of his much-anticipated trial. Central to this legal skirmish is a 47-page motion in limine, a strategic move aimed at excluding the testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and confidant turned adversary. This motion is not merely a procedural step but a critical maneuver in Trump’s legal strategy, underscoring the intense scrutiny and complexities of the case.

The Core of Trump’s Legal Strategy

At the heart of Trump’s request is a profound concern over the credibility of Michael Cohen, whose past is marred by convictions for perjury and a pattern of dishonest behavior. Trump’s defense meticulously outlines instances of Cohen’s admitted perjury in court, inconsistencies in his statements, including lies about tax evasion, and misleading a federal judge. These examples are presented not just as isolated incidents but as evidence of a deeper character flaw that, in the defense’s view, undermines Cohen’s reliability as a witness.

Expanding the Battle: Beyond Cohen

Trump’s legal team is not stopping with Cohen; they’re pushing to exclude evidence and arguments they deem irrelevant or prejudicial, particularly those related to the 2016 election. The defense argues that the prosecution’s attempts to connect Trump to efforts to influence the 2016 election lack legal foundation and stray from the core issues of the case. They further assert that actions taken to prevent negative publicity during Trump’s campaign do not constitute fraud or illegal acts, drawing parallels with similar strategies employed by other politicians to bolster their position.

A Multifaceted Argument for Exclusion

The motion encompasses a broad array of requests, including efforts to limit discussions around the Access Hollywood tape and payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. The defense contends that these topics, while sensational, are peripheral to the charges at hand and could unjustly prejudice the jury. By labeling such evidence as hearsay or irrelevant, Trump’s lawyers aim to narrow the trial’s scope, focusing solely on directly relevant information to safeguard the trial’s integrity and Trump’s right to a fair trial.

Challenges and Skepticism Ahead

Despite the comprehensive nature of the motion, there’s a prevailing skepticism about its potential success. Observers note the general legal principle that allows for the cross-examination of witnesses, suggesting that the ultimate judgment of credibility lies with the jury, not the judge. This skepticism is further fueled by New York’s historical context, where Trump has faced unfavorable outcomes in past legal encounters. The expectation that the trial will proceed without significant evidence or witness exclusion, as requested by Trump’s defense, highlights the contentious atmosphere surrounding the case.

Preparation for a High-Stakes Trial

As the trial date approaches, with jury selection slated to begin shortly, the defense team is bracing for a rigorous examination of the case’s merits. The motion filed by Trump’s lawyers is a testament to the high stakes involved, reflecting deep concerns over fairness and impartiality in a trial that promises to be as much about the intricacies of law as about the court of public opinion. With New York’s legal landscape as the backdrop, the trial is poised to be a pivotal moment in Trump’s ongoing legal saga, capturing the attention of observers nationwide.

Conclusion

The legal battle over Michael Cohen’s testimony is but one facet of a multifaceted defense strategy deployed by Donald Trump’s legal team. This strategy is emblematic of the complexities and high stakes inherent in this New York criminal trial. As the proceedings move forward, the motion to exclude Cohen’s testimony—and the broader efforts to narrow the trial’s scope—underscore the contentious nature of the legal arguments at play. With the integrity of the court and justice process at stake, the trial not only tests the bounds of legal strategy but also probes the ethical and constitutional responsibilities of all parties involved. As observers watch closely, the outcome of these legal maneuvers will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications, setting precedents and shaping perceptions of justice in high-profile cases.

 

Trump Motions in Limine Feb. 22 2024 E-filed Feb. 26 by Robert Gouveia on Scribd


Join my Locals community for exclusive content at WatchingTheWatchers.locals.com!



Get my Daily Mind Map and Show Notes

Where should I send them?
 
In case you missed it:

Prefer To Listen?

Check Out the Audio-Only Podcast
Follow Robert on Social Media
Follow Robert on Social Media

Get my Daily Mind Map and Show Notes

Where should I send them?