Former President Donald Trump’s erstwhile attorney and fixer Michael Cohen is making a promise to his former boss: He’ll stop talking about the Manhattan criminal trial in public until he takes the witness stand to take down the ex-president.
Cohen made the mocking promise in a post to social media platform X on Wednesday. “Despite not being the gagged defendant, out of respect for Judge Merchan and the prosecutors, I will cease posting anything about Donald on my social media account or on the Mea Culpa Podcast until after my trial testimony,” posted Cohen, ending his comments with, “See you all in a month (or more).”
Cohen, who has admitted to facilitating a hush payment from Trump to adult film star Stormy Daniels and turned on the former president after serving a stint in prison for his role, is slated to be a key witness in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump for business fraud.
Trump and his attorneys intend to counter Cohen’s testimony by discrediting his account, noting that he has admitted to lying and therefore can’t be trusted. Cohen, for his part, contends that his lies were also at the direction of Trump himself.
However, the former president is currently facing additional legal problems from the fact that he has publicly promoted attacks on Cohen from his social media platform, which prosecutors argue is a violation of the gag order Judge Juan Merchan placed him under. Merchan held a hearing on this matter earlier in the week, where the former president’s lawyers struggled to explain their client’s behavior.
While Cohen could be one of the most explosive witnesses, he is not the first. Prosecutors opened their case with testimony from David Pecker, the former National Enquirer head who has been implicated in similar schemes to bury scandals involving Trump during the 2016 election.
In related news, Donald Trump took a swipe Wednesday at the judge overseeing his New York hush money trial, accusing him of thinking he is “above the Supreme Court.” Speaking to Fox News, Trump slammed Judge Juan Merchan, accusing of “prohibiting” the former president from attending arguments Thursday on presidential immunity and calling it “the most important case in many years” before the high court.
Trump had requested be he allowed to attend arguments at the Supreme Court about Trump’s immunity on Thursday, but Merchan denied the request. The former president was also outraged when Merchan did not immediately approve his demand to attend his son Barron’s graduation.
As many reporters in the courtroom have noted, it is common practice to require criminal defendants to appear in court.
“Because he thinks he is above the Supreme Court, he is prohibiting me from going to the presidential immunity hearing where some of the great legal scholars will be arguing the case — the most important case in many years on the Supreme Court,” Trump told Fox News Digital.
“Without presidential immunity, the presidency becomes a ceremonial position only, it will be decimated,” Trump continued. “He’s prohibiting me from going. He is a radical left Democrat.”
Trump also claimed that virtually every legal scholar agreed with his claim, but this assertion does not stand up to fact and recent reports. Legal analysts Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann crafted a list of questions Wednesday that they suggested the High Court ask the two sides that includes : “Would President Biden be free to order the assassination of a political rival if the president felt his opponent was a threat to democracy?”
“It’s an embarrassment to Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party who are duly standing behind it and the judge is totally conflicted — totally conflicted,” Trump told Fox News.
A ruling from the Supreme Court over the question of Trump’s immunity in regards to his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, will likely come in June.
In comments from last week, Merchan acknowledged that being present for immunity arguments is a “big deal” for Trump, “But a trial in New York Supreme Court… is also a big deal,” Merchan said.
In other news, a Michigan judge warned that disparaging online comments about witnesses could lead to contempt charges, highlighting concerns about witness intimidation in a high-profile case involving so-called “fake electors.” District Court Judge Kristin Simmons addressed the issue on Tuesday during a hearing. She pointed out that making negative comments about witnesses on social media platforms like Facebook could be seen as an attempt to intimidate.
The case centers around 16 individuals, including former Michigan Republican Party co-chair Meshawn Maddock. They are accused of attempting to send unauthorized Electoral College votes to Congress in an effort to overturn Michigan’s 2020 presidential election results.
According to Bridge Michigan, attorney Nicholas Somberg, representing Maddock, came under scrutiny from the judge for his social media activity. Somberg had labeled a cooperating witness, James Renner, as the “AG’s star snitch” in a post. Renner had agreed to testify against his co-defendants as part of a plea deal after initially facing charges himself.
“It’s no secret he’s an informant or snitch or whatever — these words are interchangeable,” Somberg told Bridge Michigan. He defended his choice of words, arguing that they were not meant to be disparaging but descriptive of Renner’s role in the case.
Judge Simmons addressed the comments, calling them ‘juvenile and ridiculous’ and emphasizing that court time should not be consumed by issues related to social media behavior.
The controversy arose during a preliminary examination to determine if the accused knowingly committed forgery in their attempt to influence the election outcome. The hearing also addressed the broader implications of such actions on the integrity of the electoral process.
Maddock has defended her role in the scheme by insisting she was not a “fake elector.” “We didn’t do anything wrong,” she said last year. “We know we didn’t do anything wrong. We’re not fake electors. I was a duly elected Trump elector. There was no forgery involved.”
In a separate development, the U.S. has 50 states, but that didn’t stop Republican Party co-chair Lara Trump from telling Newsmax that they have “litigation in 81 states.” Lara Trump made this declaration in a Newsmax interview that the Democratic National Committee shared on social media Wednesday afternoon in a post that almost immediately drew ridicule.
“We have lawsuits in 81 states right now,” Lara Trump declares. “We’re going to have lawyers in all the major polling locations.”
Replied the group Republicans Against Trump, “Who wants to tell her?”
As responses on social media show, the question spurred lots of volunteers.
“How does anyone listen to this woman?” asked social media user @ArtCandee.
USA Today sports editor Mike Freeman wondered if perhaps Lara Trump was a “time traveler” and “there are 81 states in the future.”
“Are all 81 states in the room with you right now?” needled The Volatile Mermaid.
Comedy writer Paul Lander quipped: “RNC co-Chair Lara Trump: We have lawsuits in 81 states right now. Including the state of denial…”
“Best hire ever!!!!” mocked the Decoding Fox News account.
“Trump is never going to get enough electoral votes this election,” @TeaTime75 noted.
“Lara, the Dumbest Trump, just announced the RNC is bringing election interference lawsuits in ’81 states.’ She added, ‘Including West Missitucky, Upper Narnia, New Polyvinyl, South Oxyclean and my home state of Moronia,” quipped Paul Rudnick.
Ex-Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob sarcastically sounded the alarm, saying Mrs. Trump is “campaigning in 31 states that the Democrats don’t even know about.”
Others used the opportunity to take the comment to the far-right conspiracy theory level. “My people are on the ground in 81 states and you won’t believe what they’re finding,” the account joked.
