Bombshell 2018 Letter Delivers a Gut Punch to Manhattan DA’s Case Against Trump


What is Michael Cohen’s testimony worth?

I wrote about the testimony that Robert Costello, his former legal advisor, told the grand jury that Cohen was a serial lying liar and “far from solid evidence” and that Cohen had said to him that he had never told Trump about Stormy Daniels’s payment. This is the crux of the case against Donald Trump.

There is more evidence now that supports the DA’s case.

Cohen’s former lawyer wrote to the Federal Election Commission in 2018 that he had “used his personal funds to facilitate a $130,000 payment to Ms. Stephanie Clifford,” also known as Stormy Daniels. This also matches Cohen’s statement to Costello.

Stephen Ryan, Cohen’s lawyer, stated in a February 2018 letter that neither the Trump Organization nor Trump Campaign was party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford and neither paid Mr. Cohen directly or indirectly.

Mr. Cohen was not a government employee during the relevant time periods. The questionable payment does not amount to a campaign contribution or expenditure, and the FEC has no jurisdiction in this matter. The complainants cannot and have not presented any evidence to support this assertion. The complaint should therefore be dismissed.

Cohen contradicted what Cohen later said after Trump flipped on him to try to stay out of jail, and the letter presumably contradicts his statements to the grand jury.

This adds to the weight of all the other things and causes the Manhattan DA to lose the case. Alvin Bragg delayed the grand jury proceedings for Wednesday. Sources indicated that the grand jury may be questioning Trump’s case and that there was dissension within the ranks of DAs over the case.

Trump responded to the explosive letter, calling it “exculpatory.”

This was also supported by other legal experts.

Julie Rendelman, a former Brooklyn prosecutor, said that the 2018 letter could be helpful for Trump’s defense if he is being prosecuted by Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney.

Rendelman stated that he believed it would open up the possibility of additional questions about his credibility as well as more cross-examination opportunities — as if they didn’t have enough.

Michael Bachner, a former Manhattan prosecutor, also stated that Cohen could be problematic because he may or may not tell the truth about what happened.

Bachner stated, “Whenever you have a star witness or significant witness in your case — someone who has an immense amount of baggage including false statements from the past — that’s a serious problem.”

Exactly. This is yet another example of Cohen lying, and it undermines the case further. It’s no surprise that Bragg is having problems with the case. It begs the question: Has the grand jury seen this letter?