Evidences brought up during the trial surrounding the alleged ‘hush money’ issued by former President Donald Trump have been severely criticized by Michael Cohen’s previous legal advisor. This high-profile case has been thrown into doubt due to serious questions concerning the credibility and honesty of Cohen, Trump’s previous lawyer. Cohen, who has lost his legal license due to felonious perjury, was under the public scrutiny of Robert Costello, a distinguished defense lawyer in New York City.
In the forthcoming testimony before the House subcommittee that concerns the Weaponization of Government, Costello is prepared to claim that Cohen admitted to creating the scheme himself in 2018. According to him, Cohen had no concrete evidence against Trump, the man he tried to incriminate in inventing the supposed ‘hush money’ plan.
Before his appointment as a high-ranking New York defense attorney, Costello had served as the deputy head of the criminal division under the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan. In a testimony prepared previously and secured by Just the News, he expounds that, contrary to what is being broadcasted in the media, Cohen had repeatedly asserted Trump’s innocence during the 2018 interrogation.
Federal prosecutors had been probing into the possibility of Trump having violated electoral laws during the 2016 presidential campaign. However, these investigations reached no substantial conclusion, and as such, charges against the former president were not filed. This decision was made taking into consideration the ambiguity and dubiousness of Cohen’s accusations.
Adding another layer to the puzzle, Costello pointed out that Cohen was facing extreme emotional distress at this time, even contemplating suicide. There was a belief that if Cohen could provide substantial evidence against the former president, it would make for a considerable plea deal. Nonetheless, Cohen could assert nothing profoundly incriminating on Trump, as per Costello’s recollections.
Drawing upon multiple conversations, Costello reported that Cohen emphasized his innocence again and again. Despite Costello urging him to come clean and fully cooperate, Cohen remained adamant, stating, ‘I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.’ This same statement was repeated in almost all their interactions.
The plot thickened when Cohen changed his legal representation and his initial report to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan. In response to these shifting accounts, Costello took it upon himself to waive the attorney-client privilege, thereby revealing previously held confidential communications to federal prosecutors.
These exchanges contradict Cohen’s recent accounts of the events in question. Costello maintained that the evidence provided was so persuasive that federal authorities opted against proceeding with charges against Trump, based on the oscillating claims of Cohen.
Post-decision, the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not reopen negotiations with Cohen. After taking into account his repeated lies and lack of credibility, they refrained from charging Trump. Costello appreciates this decision, pointing out that it clearly demonstrates the principles of justice. He, however, censured the New York District Attorney’s Office for handling the case differently.
Jonathan Turley, a Georgetown law professor, recently shared his opinion on the case. Turley, after investigating Cohen’s declarations, voiced his skepticism regarding any criminal activity being committed by Trump.
Cohen, who had previously faced charges for lying to Congress and was under scrutiny for other allegations of perjury, appeared in court in relation to a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Before Cohen’s appearance, a severance agreement involving former Trump Organization executive, Allen Weisselberg, was denied by New York Judge Juan Merchan, despite prosecutors’ plea for it to be considered as evidence for Cohen’s testimony.
Turley further criticizes the introduction of Weisselberg’s severance agreement, labeling the prosecutors’ move as dishonest. Turley voiced his doubt about the judge’s decision of not halting the case or forcing the prosecution to make their intentions clear.
He stated that the prosecutor, who could have straightforwardly called the accountant, had chosen to insinuate a potential damaging evidence against Trump. However, this ‘evidence’ was blocked due to Weisselberg’s agreement. Turley clarified that such a suggestion was completely false, and thus, Judge Merchan’s decision to turn down this proposal was justified.
Inconsistent evidences and vague implications, according to Turley, weaken the prosecution’s case. He believes this lack of solid evidence will lead the defense to request a directed verdict, stating that there is inadequate proof supporting any criminal activity in this case.
