Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: The last time I appeared before Congress, I came to
Speaker 2: protect mister Trump. Today I am here to tell the
Speaker 2: truth about mister Trump.
Speaker 1: Michael Cohene's testimony in the Trump hush money trial is
Speaker 1: similar to his congressional testimony back in twenty nineteen, in
Speaker 1: that he explained how he went from being Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: lawyer and fixer to being the star witness against him.
Speaker 1: Cohen is testified that the former president signed off on
Speaker 1: a plan to cover up the one hundred thirty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels
Speaker 1: to keep their alleged sexual encounter out of the news
Speaker 1: ahead of the twenty sixteen election. The prosecution has basically
Speaker 1: built its case around Cohen will be the final witness
Speaker 1: for the Manhattan Da, joining me as Bloomberg Legal reporter
Speaker 1: Patricia or Tada, who has been in the courtroom for
Speaker 1: all the testimony. Before we go inside the courtroom, Pat,
Speaker 1: let's talk about how Republicans, including the Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson, Alabama Senator Tommy Tubberville, and other Republicans came
Speaker 1: to support Trump on Tuesday and make statements on his
Speaker 1: behalf outside the courthouse.
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson showed up outside the courtroom but never went
Speaker 2: inside the courtroom, so go figure that out. So he
Speaker 2: was there to support Trump but didn't go into the courtroom.
Speaker 2: So the Republican politicians showed up to show the support
Speaker 2: for Trump, and then with the exception of Mike Johnson,
Speaker 2: four of them went in to the courtroom and sat
Speaker 2: in the front row, and then during a break they
Speaker 2: left in the morning and came back late, and they
Speaker 2: arrived just as Michael Cohen was describing to the jury
Speaker 2: how he decided to seek guilty and start cooperating with
Speaker 2: the government. And it was a very heartfelt moment where
Speaker 2: he was describing how he basically had a reckoning with
Speaker 2: his children, his eldest daughter, who was a freshman at
Speaker 2: the University of Pennsylvania, and he said he was protecting
Speaker 2: his family, and then his daughter told him that we're
Speaker 2: your family, they're not your family, and you have to
Speaker 2: think about us, and that's when he decided to be guilty.
Speaker 2: And he's choking up with emotion, and then who comes
Speaker 2: clattering down the center aisle of the courtroom, disrupting proceeding.
Speaker 2: But the Republicans who came to show the support for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. It was a weird, disjointed moment. I don't
Speaker 2: know if the jury was paying attention. It was kind
Speaker 2: of to those of us, the reporters in the audience,
Speaker 2: it was odd to see people being allowed to walk
Speaker 2: into the courtroom in the middle of trial, in the
Speaker 2: middle of testimony, and no one said a word to
Speaker 2: them that would not be permitted from anyone else. But
Speaker 2: this group and math arrived and clambered down the aisle,
Speaker 2: clonking with their heels and sitting down.
Speaker 1: Has the prosecution complained to the judge about the fact that,
Speaker 1: for example, Mike Johnson in his statement, he's saying almost
Speaker 1: word for word what Trump has said about the trial
Speaker 1: about Michael Cohen. So Trump is using them to avoid
Speaker 1: the gag order he's under.
Speaker 2: Trump yesterday called them his surrogeis and it does appear
Speaker 2: about he's using them as this mouse key surrogates to
Speaker 2: speak and say the things he's not permitted now as
Speaker 2: a descendant. Judge Mershawn, who's presiding over the case, has
Speaker 2: some power and authority over Trump to say, behave and
Speaker 2: don't make comments about the witnesses and the jury. I
Speaker 2: guess this is their way of trying to do an
Speaker 2: end run around the court rolls and around the judge's
Speaker 2: dag order. No one has complained yet, and I don't
Speaker 2: know if Murshawn has any authority to say anything to
Speaker 2: direct members of Congress or former politicians like Visick Rowasani
Speaker 2: to not say anything.
Speaker 1: Like the judge has any control over what they say.
Speaker 1: Let's turn out to Michael Cohen's testimony. Tell us about
Speaker 1: his demeanor on direct examination.
Speaker 2: He mad quite a different presentation than he did when
Speaker 2: he testified as the New York Attorney General civil fraud
Speaker 2: case in October. There, he was harried, he filled out
Speaker 2: his story, He was very anxious, nervous, and he went
Speaker 2: on and gave very long answers that were very disjointed.
Speaker 2: And then when cross examination came up with close examined
Speaker 2: by Alena Haba, Trump's lawyer, she managed to immediately get
Speaker 2: under his skin, ruffle him, unnerved him, and needle him,
Speaker 2: and then he got very combative and defensive. This time,
Speaker 2: he didn't do that his answers on direct examination by
Speaker 2: prosecutor Susan Hoffinger was very methodical, quiet. He gave very
Speaker 2: simple answers, no, ma'am, yes, ma'am. He didn't elaborate or
Speaker 2: get broader any long involved anecdotes. I thought it was
Speaker 2: very effective because basically he told a very simple story.
Speaker 2: And this is a story he's been telling, as we
Speaker 2: all remember, since he completed guilty in August twenty eighteen,
Speaker 2: so for six years he's told this different story, and
Speaker 2: now he got his chance to finally confront Trump. He
Speaker 2: did a couple of times shoot a glance over at
Speaker 2: the defense table, but I did notice whenever he got
Speaker 2: up and to be moved and leave the courtroom, the
Speaker 2: court officer sort of blocked him off from Trumps and
Speaker 2: they basically stopped any confrontation. And that's kind of what
Speaker 2: happened when Madeline Westerhouse testified, she seemed to go on
Speaker 2: to go up to Trump, but the court officers prevented her,
Speaker 2: and Trump seemed to try to go up to Hope
Speaker 2: Hicks and greet her but was against blocked. None of
Speaker 2: this was allowed to happen in front of the jury.
Speaker 1: Explain how he explained the hush money payment to Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels Trump's connection to the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
Speaker 2: A big, seventy thousand foot version is that macro view
Speaker 2: is that they find out after the Acts of Hollywood
Speaker 2: papers come out in October twenty sixteen, weeks before the election,
Speaker 2: they find out that Stormy Daniels is shopping her story.
Speaker 2: And the reason they find this out is because of
Speaker 2: this agreement they have with David Pecker and the National Inquirer.
Speaker 2: Cohen and Trump get alerted about the fallacious story that
Speaker 2: Sterermy Daniels was trying to shop her story. Thorn Star
Speaker 2: says she had sex response in two thousand and six
Speaker 2: and had him and sexual encounter with him. As a
Speaker 2: result of that, he alerts everybody and he starts freaking
Speaker 2: out to Keith Edelman, who's Stormy lawyer, and they discussed
Speaker 2: some kind of payment, and he's discussing this with David
Speaker 2: Pecker as well, who had originally agreed to pay off
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to Karen McDougal, the
Speaker 2: Playboy model, to buy her silence for her story that
Speaker 2: early age on this bump, and then the National Inquirer
Speaker 2: paid fifty thousand dollars for a doorman, a Trump Tower
Speaker 2: dorm man, who claimed that Trump had fathered an illegitimate
Speaker 2: child with one of the female Latina employees. So Peckard
Speaker 2: already worked over one hundred and eighty thousand dollars at
Speaker 2: this point. So Pecker consulted with his lawyer and told
Speaker 2: Cohen he wasn't going to pay anymore. And apparently Pecker
Speaker 2: now became concerned that this could be a campaign finance violation,
Speaker 2: so he didn't want to pay. So then Cohen says
Speaker 2: he got very concerned about having to pay this off
Speaker 2: quickly because the election was about will happen, and Trump
Speaker 2: had told him this is terrible, this is quote a
Speaker 2: disaster for the campaign. If I win, it won't matter,
Speaker 2: and if I lose the presidency, I won't care. And
Speaker 2: then Cohen says that Trump was pulling terribly with women,
Speaker 2: so he was worried too. So then the decision comes
Speaker 2: to he's going to pay Stormy off himself. So he
Speaker 2: has this discussion won't pay, He decides to make the payment,
Speaker 2: and he described in great detail a lot of the
Speaker 2: things that jury's already seen. They've seen text between Stormy's
Speaker 2: agent and for a lawyer discussing the payment. They've seen
Speaker 2: emails between Cohen and Stormy's lawyers discussing the payment. They've
Speaker 2: seen bank records where Cohen made the payment, and now
Speaker 2: we hear it from his own words linking him up
Speaker 2: to Trump. What he said, which was very interesting yesterday
Speaker 2: the last day of direct was that he has a
Speaker 2: discussion with Trump after the elections at the White House
Speaker 2: in the Oval office, and Trump asked him, are you
Speaker 2: doing okay? And he says, well, you know. He mentions
Speaker 2: that he hasn't been paid for January and February, which
Speaker 2: would be the start of the payments to the repayment
Speaker 2: of one hundred and thirty thousand dollars that he was
Speaker 2: supposed to get back from Trump. So Trump tells him,
Speaker 2: see Alan Weifelberg and Alan Weifelberg, who was not allowed
Speaker 2: to do anything financially without Trump's approval, and he was
Speaker 2: not aligned to side any check for over a certain
Speaker 2: amount of money without prior permission from Eric Trump, Don Junior,
Speaker 2: or Donald Trump himself suddenly is sending texting it. So
Speaker 2: Don Junior and Eric pay for a seventy thousand dollars installment,
Speaker 2: which is two checks for January and February, and then
Speaker 2: the jury saw another chess sign and then they saw
Speaker 2: the eighth check that he said Donald Trump shigned from
Speaker 2: the White House when Donald Trump was president already in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen. So every month onward h chess signed by
Speaker 2: Donald Trump personally. And to his testimony that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: has proclaimed in books and in interviews that he wouldn't
Speaker 2: sign any check without knowing exactly what it was for.
Speaker 1: So, Pat, what are the documents that are most supportive
Speaker 1: of his test testimony that corroborate his claims that Trump
Speaker 1: knew and approved the hush money payments.
Speaker 2: The text, there's emails, there's tons of records, and there's
Speaker 2: tons of text messages back and forth. There is a
Speaker 2: handwritten document and it's basically Weifelberg scrapch notes calculating how
Speaker 2: he'd repay coent. It got quote unquote grossed up and
Speaker 2: multiplied up. It was one hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: Cohen said he was owed of fifty thousand dollars or
Speaker 2: a job he'd done for Trump, and Trump had never
Speaker 2: paid him back. He was expecting to get reimbursed for
Speaker 2: his bonus for twenty seventeen. You know, the December check
Speaker 2: that everybody loves to get for Christmas check is a bonus.
Speaker 2: He didn't get anything like that from Trump. He was
Speaker 2: expecting an additional amounts of money. So dry Solders basically
Speaker 2: scrappad of all the calculations that added up to the
Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty thousand plus fifty thousand, multiplied by
Speaker 2: certain quantifiers. Because Cohen was in a certain tax bracket,
Speaker 2: that ended up being one hundred and eighty thousand dollars payment,
Speaker 2: but doubled because Cohen was in the fifty percent tax bracket,
Speaker 2: that was a four hundred and twenty thousand dollars payment completely,
Speaker 2: So then it said divided by twelve, which ended up
Speaker 2: being thirty five thousands. But you hear the testimony from
Speaker 2: la Cohen saying something like, but what about Melania? Won't
Speaker 2: she be a shet when she finds out about Stormy?
Speaker 2: And Trump said, are you kidding? You think I'm going
Speaker 2: to be on the market long, no problem, not a chance.
Speaker 2: Is that the comment that some man makes when he's
Speaker 2: allegedly worried and concerned about his wife finding out about
Speaker 2: his infidelity.
Speaker 1: I think the prosecutor will probably be bringing that up
Speaker 1: in closing arguments. Pat, stay with me. Coming up, we're
Speaker 1: going to discuss Michael Cohen's cross examination. I'm June Grass.
Speaker 1: When you're listening to Bloomberg. Donald Trump's fixer turned foe,
Speaker 1: will return to the witness stand tomorrow and could face
Speaker 1: a bruising round of questioning from the former president's lawyers.
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen's testimony this week has linked Trump to all
Speaker 1: aspects of a hush money scheme that prosecutors say was
Speaker 1: aimed at stifling stories that threatened his twenty sixteen campaign.
Speaker 1: Cohen is the prosecution's star witness, and they'll end their
Speaker 1: case with him. Then we'll find out whether the defense
Speaker 1: will be putting on a case and if Donald Trump
Speaker 1: will testify in his own behalf. I've been talking to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg legal reporter Patricia Hurtano, who's been in the courtroom
Speaker 1: for all the testimony.
Speaker 2: Pat.
Speaker 1: Before the break, we were talking about the scribblings by
Speaker 1: the former CFO of the Trump organization, Alan Weiselberg, detailing
Speaker 1: how Michael Cohen was going to be paid back, a
Speaker 1: very important document for the prosecution, and in most cases
Speaker 1: the prosecutors would call Weiselberg to the state to testify
Speaker 1: about those scribblings that he made. Alan Weisselberg is not
Speaker 1: going to testify, is he? The jury's going to wonder.
Speaker 1: I think where is he?
Speaker 2: Well? Right now, the DA has no expectations or interest
Speaker 2: in calling Wassilberg. After all, the man is a twice
Speaker 2: convicted felon. He pleaded guilty to tax law charges on
Speaker 2: behalf of the Trump organization, and he played guilty to perjury,
Speaker 2: and he perjured himself when he testified in favor supporting
Speaker 2: Donald Trump at the civil tax flawed case brought by
Speaker 2: the New York State ag So why anybody would call
Speaker 2: such a tainted witness, as anyone's yest, he would not
Speaker 2: be a reliable witness, and he would be still protecting Trump.
Speaker 2: I think the prosecution saying, why would you call somebody
Speaker 2: that's possibly going to give reasonable doubt for a jury
Speaker 2: when the documents speak for themselves and you don't have
Speaker 2: to heed anybody going to translate because it's right there
Speaker 2: in black and white. And they had other Trump witnesses,
Speaker 2: Trump lords witnesses striving with the paperwork, said, so they
Speaker 2: don't need it. The other thing that Cohen said yesterday
Speaker 2: was he had to apologize to the mares and people
Speaker 2: because he helped conceal the information they needed when they
Speaker 2: were selecting a man who was running for the highest
Speaker 2: office in the LAMB. So, I mean, when I heard that,
Speaker 2: it was stunning to hear, because this really is central
Speaker 2: to the DA claim that this is an effort to
Speaker 2: undermine the elections. And Cohen said this would have helped
Speaker 2: citizens understand if they had known the truth about Trump.
Speaker 1: So one thing that I found really interesting was the
Speaker 1: cover up of the cover up where Trump and others
Speaker 1: tried to keep Michael Cohen in line.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was That's always been this argument that the
Speaker 2: DA had file papers free trial saying there was something
Speaker 2: called the quote unquote pressure campaign, and I assumed it
Speaker 2: just meant be tweaked by Donald Trump. When Michael Cohen
Speaker 2: gets his offices get raided, office and his apartment and
Speaker 2: his hotel, he's extended in a hotel because his apartment
Speaker 2: was being renovated, he says, So when he gets raided.
Speaker 2: In April twenty eighteen, Trump is tweeting, Oh, he's my guy.
Speaker 2: I'm supporting him. He's a good man, a great man,
Speaker 2: a wonderful lawyer. But then the day after Michael Cohen
Speaker 2: pleads guilty, and people may need to remember that the
Speaker 2: day Michael Cohen played guilty in August twenty eighteen is
Speaker 2: the same day that Paul Mannifort got convicted. It was
Speaker 2: a new doubleheader that day, and the next day Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is praising Paul Manifort for being a good American
Speaker 2: but condemning and damning Michael Cohen as a sleave ball
Speaker 2: and a terrible lawyer. And never hired this terrible man.
Speaker 2: So I always thought that was the end of the
Speaker 2: story of the of the pressure campaign. But then he
Speaker 2: saw this other learn named Robert Costello, claimed that he
Speaker 2: had represented Michael Cohen and was basically asserting that Cohen
Speaker 2: had told him a completely different story and was a
Speaker 2: liar and not to be believed. And this happens after
Speaker 2: Michael Cohen plete guilty to federal charges, So it added
Speaker 2: to the Murphy mess around Michael Cohen was he as
Speaker 2: luosy as they claimed. We saw tons of emails yesterday
Speaker 2: that were pretty stocking where Coleen gets introduced the Costello
Speaker 2: and then Costello starts sending him these very kind of insinuating,
Speaker 2: supplicating emails of like, hey, just remember I talked to
Speaker 2: the big guy. He's in your on your side. I
Speaker 2: spoke to our friend, a lawyer, meaning Juliani. So Costello
Speaker 2: is apparently a Juliani ally. And Cohen said he was
Speaker 2: afraid that Costello was just acting with Guliani to find
Speaker 2: out exactly what Coen was going to do. Keep your
Speaker 2: friends close for your enemy's closer kind of idea. And
Speaker 2: you see these constant hollage of emails with Costello is
Speaker 2: haranguing as the first he's supplicating and kissing up to him,
Speaker 2: and then he starts haranguing. I'm like, you don't answer
Speaker 2: my calls and you're not talking and we need to
Speaker 2: discuss it, and why are you thinking of hiring another lawyer.
Speaker 2: I don't like this, and you know, basically accusing of
Speaker 2: all kinds of nefarious substitutes. And Kellen is like, hey,
Speaker 2: I didn't make a decision, you're not my lawyer, and
Speaker 2: then he starts really almost assailing him, And that was
Speaker 2: kind of shocking that Costello and we now know, and
Speaker 2: Costello went on a campaign of his own integrating and
Speaker 2: castigating Cohan. So it's kind of weird that you see
Speaker 2: that that. Cohen said he felt that this was a
Speaker 2: back channel way of Giuliani going between Trump and working
Speaker 2: behind the scenes to keep him in line and keep
Speaker 2: him from pleading guilty and trying to constantly take a
Speaker 2: temperature and find out how close he was to cooperate.
Speaker 1: Let's turn down to the cross examination. Blanche started the
Speaker 1: cross trying to needle Cohen right started off.
Speaker 2: And he said, didn't you call me, you know, a
Speaker 2: stupid little expletive in a twite? And on social media?
Speaker 2: Haven't you said these things? And what he was doing
Speaker 2: was what the defense was complaining Cohen was doing. And
Speaker 2: the defense had complained bitterly that Cohen was integrating and
Speaker 2: saying mean things about Trump and he had to stop.
Speaker 2: And then the judge told the DA, make him stop,
Speaker 2: get them to knock it off. The judge told the DA,
Speaker 2: and they said, as much as we can, We're going
Speaker 2: to try. But controlling Michael Cohen is going to be
Speaker 2: a different story. But then the defense Blanche gets up
Speaker 2: there and it starts repeating the things he was complaining
Speaker 2: Michael Cohen was saying. And then I think the judge
Speaker 2: felt like, okay, to not make it personal between Todd
Speaker 2: Blanche and Michael Cohen, let's talk about why we're here,
Speaker 2: and I think the judge basically shut that down. And
Speaker 2: then he started talking about all the new things he's
Speaker 2: ever said about Trump, including the T shirt of Trumps
Speaker 2: behind bars in an orange jump suit behind bars like
Speaker 2: in the jail cell handcuffs and it says Trump twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four and it's got a little logo on it.
Speaker 2: And then they started quoting from all the things Michael
Speaker 2: Cohen has ever said, and we know there are tons
Speaker 2: of things Michael Cohen has said. We also learned that
Speaker 2: Michael Cohen has made three point four million dollars.
Speaker 1: That was really surprising. Explain how he made.
Speaker 2: You know, well, in two books and podcasts merchandising, but
Speaker 2: it's mainly the book and appearances and speakers speeds, so
Speaker 2: I guess that makes sense. But I mean, if he's
Speaker 2: charging thirty two dollars for a T shirt, Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is charging how much money for a pair of gold
Speaker 2: shoes and one hundred and forty nine dollars, so basically,
Speaker 2: you know, and Stormy Dangels carn't eating, So I mean
Speaker 2: it's kind of crazy. It is a crazy case. I
Speaker 2: mean Todd Blanche accused Cohen of monetizing his hatred of Trump,
Speaker 2: which you know the jury is going to have to
Speaker 2: assess whether he's credible or not. I mean, helping their
Speaker 2: and their decision. Is this wrap of documents that may
Speaker 2: seem like just a bunch of boring pieces of paper,
Speaker 2: but there is a paper trail that, if the jury
Speaker 2: wants to look at it that way, could corroborate the
Speaker 2: story that Michael Cohen says.
Speaker 1: I mean, you said that Weiselberg would be a tough
Speaker 1: witness and not believable. Michael Cohen has more baggage, it seems,
Speaker 1: than Weiseelberg.
Speaker 2: He does, but he does have an essential story to
Speaker 2: tell that does have the ring of truth in white
Speaker 2: of all these documents and in light of prior testimony,
Speaker 2: I mean, historian Pecker's story are at hire seamlessly. The
Speaker 2: only difference in their testimony is David Pecker he was
Speaker 2: taking credits for Donald Trump getting the big idea of
Speaker 2: running for president, that he had done this poll or
Speaker 2: he had seen a poll, and he took us to Trump.
Speaker 2: And then Cohen said in his testimony, which was a
Speaker 2: little tet dish controvitory, that he had seen the poll
Speaker 2: and he took it to Donald Trump, and that he
Speaker 2: convinced Donald Trump to run for president. So both of
Speaker 2: them were trying to claim the big chance. The only
Speaker 2: difference is that David Pecker never severed his relationship with
Speaker 2: Trump and so supirely of him. Meanwhile, Michael Cohen, he
Speaker 2: went to prison for him. So that's where the ill
Speaker 2: wills comes from.
Speaker 1: You can tell a lot on cross if the witness's
Speaker 1: demeanor changes.
Speaker 2: And it did not. He stayed very calm. The questions
Speaker 2: were not as needling as Olena habs. I mean, he
Speaker 2: may come back with more firepower on Thursdays.
Speaker 1: Because I noticed that, for example, the question of whether
Speaker 1: or not he wanted to Trump convicted, the answer is
Speaker 1: pretty obvious. He's the star witness against him, but it
Speaker 1: took Blanche question after question after question after question for
Speaker 1: Cohen to admit it.
Speaker 2: Look, I've covered tons of trials, tons of criminal trial, murder, racketeering,
Speaker 2: financial flaught, you name it, and I've seen plenty across examination.
Speaker 2: It was fine, it was working like and co Winner
Speaker 2: is a lawyer, and I think that the fundamental part
Speaker 2: of his story you should say, there's animus and I
Speaker 2: guess that's what Blanche was trying to depict him as
Speaker 2: being like a tody who was constantly insinuating himself to
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and a loyal acolyte, and then he became
Speaker 2: a vicious trumpeting guy who basically was bent on revenge
Speaker 2: and then on making money off Trump.
Speaker 1: So this is the last prosecution witness. What has the
Speaker 1: defense said about a defense? Will they put on a defense?
Speaker 2: They have not said. They had answered the possibility of
Speaker 2: being allowed to call a witness about elections finance, election fraud,
Speaker 2: and I believe originally that Mershawan is strictly limited what
Speaker 2: that person could stay or bring basically as an expert witness.
Speaker 2: And they also told Mershawn yesterday they haven't decided what
Speaker 2: they're going to do, including whether or not they're going
Speaker 2: to call Trump as a witness, and we're going to
Speaker 2: have to wait and see. I don't think cross will
Speaker 2: end tomorrow because we're ending early at three for the weekend,
Speaker 2: and we're not going to have trial on Friday because
Speaker 2: Trump wants a campaign and attend Bearn Trump's high school graduations.
Speaker 2: So I expect that the redirect will continue into Monday.
Speaker 2: Of Cohen and then I guess we'll see what's going
Speaker 2: to happen with the rest of the week. But the
Speaker 2: defense said they're going to review what the judges previously ruled.
Speaker 1: So the trial is winding down, but there still could
Speaker 1: be a lot happening in the next week, depending on
Speaker 1: the defense. Thanks so much. That's Patricia Hertado, Bloomberg Legal reporter.
Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Opening statements
Speaker 1: in the trial of Senator Robert Menendez on bribery charges.
Speaker 1: We'll talk to a reporter who is in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. It's the
Speaker 1: first time in history that a senator has been indicted
Speaker 1: twice in separate bribery cases. It's also the first time
Speaker 1: a senator has been indicted under the foreign agent statute.
Speaker 1: Quite a come down for New Jersey's Democratic Senator Robert Menendez.
Speaker 1: Once a powerful senator and chair of the Senate's Foreign
Speaker 1: Relations Committee. Now he's on trial accused of taking cash,
Speaker 1: gold bars in a luxury car from two businessmen to
Speaker 1: perform favors for them and corruptly help the Egyptian government.
Speaker 1: The trial is taking place in Federal Court in Lower Manhattan,
Speaker 1: not far from the hush money trial of former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Bloomberg Legal reporter David Rikis was in the
Speaker 1: courtroom for the opening statements today, so David. In her
Speaker 1: opening statements, the prosecutor said that this was not politics
Speaker 1: as usual, but politics for profit.
Speaker 3: The prosecutor laid out a very damning portrait of Bob
Speaker 3: Menendez's actions over five years, saying that he sold his
Speaker 3: office to two New Jersey businessmen in exchange for hundreds
Speaker 3: of thousands of dollars of cash and gold bars, and
Speaker 3: that he also used his office to corruptly help the
Speaker 3: Egyptian government and to help out a businessman seeking money
Speaker 3: from Qatar. It was a picture that was not pretty,
Speaker 3: and essentially said that Menendez and his wife worked together
Speaker 3: to receive these bribe payments, and that his wife introduced
Speaker 3: him to Egyptian officials, who then exploited the opportunity to
Speaker 3: benefit from their relationship with Menendez. In response, the senators
Speaker 3: lawyer said that he never took any corrupt actions and
Speaker 3: that there are innocent explanations for the cash and the gold.
Speaker 3: The gold, who said had been in his wife, Nadine's
Speaker 3: family for many years, and he acknowledged that she received
Speaker 3: gold from one of the businessmen who's on trial, Fred Davies,
Speaker 3: but he said that the Senator had no knowledge of
Speaker 3: her receiving this gold until after he moved in with her.
Speaker 3: This was a second merriage to both of them. He
Speaker 3: also said that Menendez had been in the habit for
Speaker 3: thirty years of taking cash out of the bank and
Speaker 3: keeping it in his house, and that he would take
Speaker 3: it out in amounts of four hundred to five hundred
Speaker 3: dollars several times a month. And that's the explanation for
Speaker 3: more than four thousand dollars seized by a sci agent
Speaker 3: in his house in twenty twenty two, for in the
Speaker 3: house that he shared with his wife, Nadine, and that
Speaker 3: there was no corrupt intent and that he did not
Speaker 3: receive any bribes at all of cash or gold.
Speaker 1: I think we all remember the pictures after the raid
Speaker 1: of the cash stuffed into a jacket and the gold bars.
Speaker 1: Did the jury see that today?
Speaker 3: They did not see those pictures. No, But you know,
Speaker 3: good defense lawyer Alve Weisman for Bob Menendez spent a
Speaker 3: good deal of time trying to explain that because he
Speaker 3: understands how explosive that evidence is and he knows that
Speaker 3: he needs to deal with it head on. It looks
Speaker 3: very bad for us senator to have so much cash
Speaker 3: in house for anyone. Well, he came up with the
Speaker 3: explanation that this is a long standing habit for the
Speaker 3: senator to collect cash, and he says that he has
Speaker 3: bank records to prove it, going back thirty years.
Speaker 1: He tried to get his wife's trial severed and it
Speaker 1: was rejected, but now she's going to be tried later,
Speaker 1: explain what happened.
Speaker 3: Nadine Menendez developed an illness that has not been disclosed
Speaker 3: that requires surgery, and so after rejecting earlier requests to
Speaker 3: sever her from the trial, that judge agreed a couple
Speaker 3: of months ago to give her her own trial because
Speaker 3: of this illness and the time she will need to
Speaker 3: recover from her surgery.
Speaker 1: Is Menandez going to blame his wife for this?
Speaker 3: He blamed his wife. His lawyer blamed his wife in
Speaker 3: the opening statement in several different ways, saying that the
Speaker 3: two co descendants were longtime friends of maybe Menendez who
Speaker 3: entered into transactions with her that he didn't know about,
Speaker 3: that they gave her gifts that he didn't know about,
Speaker 3: and that she was in financial distress in a way
Speaker 3: that he didn't fully appreciate, and that they were trying
Speaker 3: to help her out, not bribe him.
Speaker 1: Are they still together.
Speaker 3: They are still together, although his lawyer said that when
Speaker 3: he was in Washington he was essentially reading a separate
Speaker 3: life from her.
Speaker 1: It's never a good look to blame your wife, but
Speaker 1: it's certainly better if your wife is not being tried
Speaker 1: with you. So he's lucky in that respect that her
Speaker 1: trial was severed from his.
Speaker 3: Is One of the reasons that he wanted a separate
Speaker 3: trial initially was because of the spousal privilege. He wanted
Speaker 3: to be able to make excliminating statements about her if
Speaker 3: he testified, and now it appears clearly that he's prepared
Speaker 3: to do that.
Speaker 1: Did he testified his last trial.
Speaker 3: He did not. That was the one in twenty seventeen
Speaker 3: where he was accused in a separate corruption case in
Speaker 3: New Jersey and the jury did not be to unanimous verdict.
Speaker 3: There was a hung jury and a mistriald declared, and
Speaker 3: the Justice Department then dropped that case.
Speaker 1: What the defense is going to try to do is
Speaker 1: show that he did not have corrupt intent.
Speaker 3: Is that it correct right and that these were all
Speaker 3: legal actions that he took. He didn't take any corrupt
Speaker 3: official acts in exchange for bribes.
Speaker 1: Now, a fifth defendant has already pleaded guilty. Tell us
Speaker 1: about that guilty plea.
Speaker 3: Jose Euribe was an insurance broker and he owned a
Speaker 3: trucking business in New Jersey. He pleaded guilty and admitted
Speaker 3: that he bribed Senator Menendez and his wife with a
Speaker 3: Mercedes Benz after she needed one, and in exchange for that,
Speaker 3: he said that the Senator interceded on his behalf to
Speaker 3: try to get two criminal investigations in New Jersey that
Speaker 3: were handled by the state Attorney General resolved in a
Speaker 3: favorable manner. One involved defendant who was already under indictment
Speaker 3: who have been pleted guilty, and another was a close
Speaker 3: friend of Uribe who was under criminal investigation who ultimately
Speaker 3: was never criminally charged. Is he GiB cleted guilty and
Speaker 3: will be testifying at trial against the Menendez according to
Speaker 3: the prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors have said that they expect to call dozens of witnesses,
Speaker 1: likely some of the law enforcement officials who Menendez allegedly
Speaker 1: pressured to drop in investigations, So that would include the
Speaker 1: top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, the US attorney.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. That still Selander is the US attorney,
Speaker 3: and Gerbier gray Wall, who's the former US attorney in
Speaker 3: New Jersey and is now the enforcement chief at the
Speaker 3: Security is In Exchange Commission. They're expected to testify at
Speaker 3: the trial.
Speaker 1: The judge issued a ruling yesterday that will prevent Menandez
Speaker 1: from presenting testimony from a psychiatrist who evaluated him right.
Speaker 3: Menendez wanted to present a psychiatrist who would say that
Speaker 3: Menendez had lasting psychological trauma caused by his parents fleeing
Speaker 3: Cuba sixty years ago and having their cash confiscated, so
Speaker 3: that's the reason why he essentially hoarded cash. And the
Speaker 3: judge did not allow that because he didn't think that
Speaker 3: he was properly introducing this psychiatrist as an expert. And
Speaker 3: there was also the argument that Menendez's father committed suicide,
Speaker 3: that he had been a compulsive gambler, and he when
Speaker 3: Menendez was a young man, he discontinued paying off his
Speaker 3: father's gambling debts, and that that was such a trauma
Speaker 3: to him that serves as an explanation for why Menendez
Speaker 3: was parting cash.
Speaker 1: It doesn't sound like a complicated case, but it is
Speaker 1: a complicated case for the jury.
Speaker 3: Rights well, the trials expected the last almost two months.
Speaker 3: There's another different official acts that will be considered spans
Speaker 3: five years of time. There's a lot of cash and
Speaker 3: gold bars to explain, and there's essentially three different bribe
Speaker 3: schemes that are interwoven that the government needs to prove
Speaker 3: to make their case. In some ways, it's a simple case.
Speaker 3: The government says he's a corrupt senator who took bride,
Speaker 3: but the details of proving that are going to take
Speaker 3: a lot of time and effort.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, David. We'll talk with you as the
Speaker 1: trial proceeds. That's David Voriakuz, Bloomberg Legal Reporter. And that's
Speaker 1: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news by subscribing
Speaker 1: and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June
Speaker 1: Grosso and this is Bloomberg