A Rhetorical and Legal Analysis of Michael Cohen’s Testimony Before Congress (Real Law Review)

A Rhetorical and Legal Analysis of Michael Cohen’s Testimony Before Congress (Real Law Review)

– This episode of LegalEagle was made possible by Skillshare. Learn to think like a lawyer
for free for two months by clicking the link in the description. Michael Cohen testified
in front of Congress for over seven hours. I have some thoughts. (epic music) Hey LegalEagles, it’s time
to think like a lawyer. Today we are covering the
testimony of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer and longtime legal and extralegal fixer. Because Cohen testified for so long, I can’t cover absolutely everything that happened in the hearing. This is going to be a compilation
of the different things that I think are particularly interesting. So I wanna point out some
of the legal principles that I think are incredibly
important during this hearing, but I also wanna point out
some of the rhetorical devices that Cohen himself and Congress people on either side of the aisle are using to make their points and ask effective, and sometimes not effective
questions of Cohen. Now it’s important to recognize that there are several
purposes to this hearing, and it also depends on
what particular side you’re playing for. The first is to confirm or dispute the actual testimony of Michael Cohen. So much of what he said in the hearing was already out in the news, but there’s a big difference
between speculation about what he may testify
to and actual evidence in the form of his testimony
on the record, under oath. The second is to get
additional information that you had no idea existed before, the inside story that only
Michael Cohen is privy to. And so for the Democrat’s perspective, I’m sure that they want
to get both evidence of illegal conduct, but also things that are just
embarrassing and potentially don’t necessarily rise to
the level of illegality, but are just bad for the Republicans and the President himself. On the other hand, the
Republicans want new information to discredit Michael Cohen
and to show the world why no one should believe him. And the third purpose is
to get your message out, regardless of the
testimony that Cohen gave, you knew that a lot of the politicians were going to grandstand,
because the world was watching and it was a forum to
get their message out. Whether you wanted to
discredit the investigation, or whether you wanted to bolster it. Now, as always, I want the
comments to have a vigorous but civil discussion. Remember that Stella is
watching all of your comments, and she wields the ban hammer of truth, so make sure all of your
comments are Stella appropriate. And smash that like button. All right, so let’s dig into the testimony of Michael Cohen in front of Congress. – Some will certainly ask
if Mr. Cohen was lying then, why should we believe him now? – [Man] Good question. – This is a legitimate question. I had made abundantly clear to Mr. Cohen that if he comes here today, and he does not tell him the
truth, tell us the truth, I will be the first one to refer those untruthful statements to DOJ. – So one of the things
that Congressman Cummings is doing here is what
we call front-running, which is when you know you have a bad fact or there is bad evidence out there. The worst thing you could
possibly do is hide it and pretend it doesn’t exist. So he’s getting out in
front of that bad fact and laying the groundwork for why we should believe Cohen now, and trying to take the sting
out of the Republican attack. This is a classic and very
important trial tactic that he’s using here. – Mr. Trump did not directly
tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates. In conversations we had
during the campaign, at the same time, I was
actively negotiating in Russia for him. He would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no Russian business, and then go on to lie
to the American people. – It’s really interesting to me that Cohen says specifically
that Trump did not explicitly direct him to lie to Congress. You would think that if
he really was engaging in scorched-earth tactics, he might as well say that
Trump directed him to do it. That probably would get him a better deal with the investigators and prosecutors, but credibility is incredibly important. And for him to go out but not
all the way he possibly could, that helps bolster his credibility and helps silence critics that he’s just simply
arguing over sour grapes about not getting a
job at the White House. – Because Mr. Trump had made clear to me through his personal statements to me, that we both knew to be false. And through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie. And he made it clear to me, because his personal attorneys
reviewed my statement before I gave it to Congress. – This is huge. I mean, this alone is quite a bombshell, that President Trump’s personal attorneys reviewed Cohen’s statement, which is verifiably false to Congress, and is one of the reasons
that Cohen is going to jail. Number one, I would suggest
that those attorneys lawyer up, if they haven’t done so already because it’s entirely possible that if they knew that
the changes that they made to Michael Cohen’s testimony were false, they can be liable and
guilty of suborning perjury. And the prosecutors are able to show that the President was aware
of and directed his attorneys to make those changes, that can make the President
guilty of suborning perjury. There are some pretty heavy
intent requirements there. It was recently reported
that Michael Cohen has given Congress copies of the changes that President Trump’s
attorneys made to his statement that gave rise to him pleading
guilty to lying to Congress. Those statements could
be incredibly damning. I would not expect any of those statements to be protected by
attorney-client privilege because I think the
joint defense agreement has been breached. And I don’t think the attorney-client or work-product protection would apply because of the crime-fraud exception. So if I was the President’s attorney, I would be very worried
about what those documents show to Congress. – I wound up touting the Trump
narrative for over a decade. That was my job, always stay on message, always defend. It monopolized my life. At first, I worked mostly
on Real Estate developments and other business transactions. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump brought me into his personal life
and private dealings. – A lot of people have asked me how it is that Michael Cohen can testify
to communications he had with Mr. Trump before he became President, since Michael Cohen is an attorney and communications with attorneys are supposed to be protected? Well, it’s a great question, but it’s one that’s very easily answered. Attorney-client protections only protect communications that are made between attorneys and their clients when attorneys are acting as an attorney. If you have an attorney friend who is working as an employee
or a business person, just because they’re an attorney, that doesn’t necessarily mean that attorney-client
privilege will attach. And Michael Cohen, for most of his career, it appears that he was
rarely acting as an attorney and was really just acting
mostly as an extralegal thug, and potentially as a business
person, a business associate. So all of those communications that Mr. Cohen had with Mr. Trump, when Mr. Cohen was not acting in his capacity as an actual lawyer, are not protected by
attorney-client privilege. – When he was President
of the United States, pursuant to the coverup which was the basis of my guilty plea to reimburse me the word
used by Mr. Trump’s TV lawyer for the illegal hush money
I paid on his behalf. This $35,000 check was one
of a 11 check installments that was paid throughout the
year while he was President. Other checks to reimburse me
for the hush money payments were signed by Donald Trump
Jr. and Allen Weisselberg. – So this is fairly damning
evidence from Michael Cohen that the President of the United States, his son, Donald Trump Jr. and the CFO of the Trump Organization all engaged in a criminal conspiracy
to engage in election and financial fraud by
hiding these payments in order to prevent that
information from becoming public, and potentially affecting
the outcome of the election. We have, of course, known about this for quite some time now, but Michael Cohen is going to jail for his part in this criminal conspiracy. And it’s hard to imagine
how that doesn’t apply to Donald Trump Jr., the President, or Allen Weisselberg as well. Cohen states that this conspiracy existed before the election, was
designed to affect the election, and it continued into the
Presidency when Donald Trump signed a personal check
while he was President. There’s just no way to sugarcoat this. It’s hard to see how more people
aren’t going to go to jail over this particular act, if not others, since Michael Cohen is
already going to jail for it. – I have provided the
committee with copies of Tweets that Mr. Trump posted
attacking me and my family. And only someone burying
his head in the sand would not recognize
them for what they are. So encouragement to someone to
do harm to me and my family. – Yeah, so the Presidential Tweets that surrounded this testimony, including some Tweets from Congressmen like Congressman Matt Gaetz, were so borderline witness intimidation that you have to wonder
what they were thinking when they made those statements. Here, Cohen isn’t establishing that they constitute witness tampering, that requires showing that the person who put those statements forward intended and had a corrupt motive to prevent the witness from testifying. But Cohen is at least testifying that he took those communications to be a form of witness intimidation, and was in fact intimidated by them. So, it is at least laying a groundwork for further investigations
to probe what in the world the point of those Tweets were. – How long did you work
in the White House? – [Michael] I never
worked in the White House. – That’s the point, isn’t it, Mr. Cohen? – No sir.
– Yes it is. – [Michael] No, it’s not, sir. – You wanted to work in the White House. – No, sir.
– You didn’t get brought to the dance. – Sir–
– And now. – I was extremely proud
to be personal attorney to the President of the
United States of America. I did not want to go to the White House. – So, this is a good example
of not asking questions that you don’t know the answer to. Congressman Jim Jordan here
wants to make the point that all of this is sour grapes, Michael Cohen wanted a
job at the White House, he didn’t get one, and
as a result he is now turning against the President. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but what I can tell you is
that he opened up the door for Michael Cohen to opine
and give his own story about what happened. He wanted to make a
speech, but he gave Cohen the opportunity to directly
contradict all of the points that he was trying to make. And on top of that,
Congressman Jordan is acting in a fairly aggressive way, which is a tactic that can sometimes work, but it rarely does,
especially where the witness is not acting hostile in any way. – How many times did
the President, Michael, ask you or direct you to
try to reach settlements with women in 2015 and 2016? – I’m sorry ma’am, I don’t
have the answer to that. I’d have to go back and try to recollect, it’s certainly the two that we know about. – And why do you think the
President did not provide the accurate information in his 2017 financial disclosure form? – So, that was a good example
of an open-end question from Congresswoman Maloney getting at how many mistresses Mr. Trump had before he was elected, and how many times he paid them off. She didn’t get the answer
that she wanted to, but unfortunately, she didn’t
really follow up either. When a witness testifies that he or she is not particularly sure about something, you should always go back and you should try and get the specifics. Cohen testifies that there
are at least the two. The simple follow-up question is, are there other women
that you are aware of? Are there other women
that he did not pay off? Are there other instances that
might have led to blackmail? Are there other instances
of inappropriate payments to women or other people that
might have relevant testimony? So often in this hearing, the
Democratic Congress people were not listening to the
answers that Cohen was giving. He clearly wanted to get a story out, whether you believe that
story is a different question. But he was giving them
information that they wanted, and he probably would have given them much, much more information
if they had just followed up. – You made some very demeaning
comments about the President that Ms. Patton doesn’t agree with. In fact, it has to do
with your claim of racism. She says that as a daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way that she
would work for an individual who was racist. How do you reconcile
the two of those, Mr.– – As neither should I as the
son of a Holocaust survivor. – There’s a lot going wrong
with what Congressman Meadows was trying to do here. When you have a demonstrative, which effectively he was making Ms. Patton out to be a demonstrative exhibit here, you always have to be
worried about what people are going to do to that. Because you’re opening yourself
up to further criticism based on the thing that
you are putting out there. You can’t defeat an accusation of racism by holding out one single black
woman who you have employed, as if that defeats that accusation. It just simply doesn’t,
it’s bordering on tokenism in and of itself. And number two, you don’t know
how Cohen is going to react to this particular gambit. This is a lawyer’s worst nightmare, Congressman Meadows really
should have thought out the repercussions of
bringing out Ms. Patton in this particular venue. – [Rashida] Just to make
a note, Mr. Chairman, that just because someone
has a person of color, a black person working for them does not mean they aren’t racist. And it is insensitive that
someone would even say racist, say it is racism itself, and to use a black woman as
a prop to prove it otherwise. And I can submit this for the record, if a colleague is thinking
that that’s what I’m saying, I’m just saying that’s what
I believe to have happened. And as a person of
color in this committee, that’s how I felt at that moment and I wanted to express that. But I am not calling the
gentleman, Mr. Meadows, a racist for doing so, I’m saying that in itself
it is a racist act. – Well, I hope not, Mr. Chairman, ’cause I need to be clear
on this particular– – [Elijah] Well, I– – Mr. Chairman. – So this is a great example
of the Streisand Effect and why you don’t make a
big stink about something that you don’t want to emphasize. Here, Congressman Meadows is
upset about the implication from Congresswoman Tlaib that
he engaged in racial tokenism by trotting out Lynne Patton to refute the allegation
of racism by Donald Trump. Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, he makes a big deal about it, which allows Congresswoman Tlaib to read her exact same statement again and really emphasize the point that it was a stupid gambit
to make in the first place. So, if you don’t want
to emphasize something, don’t make a huge deal about it, that is the Streisand Effect in operation. – To your knowledge, did
the President or his company ever inflate assets or revenues? – Yes. – [Lacy] And was that done with the President’s
knowledge or direction? – Everything was done with the knowledge and at the direction of Mr. Trump. – Now, a lot of this hearing focused on asset and revenue inflation
by the Trump organization for the purposes of loans
and other financial dealings. When you’re trying to
get a loan from the bank, it’s the bank’s job to
accurately value the property that’s being put forth. So it’s not surprising
that people try and use very optimistic valuations
of their own property in order to get a loan. However, revenue inflation is something that the bank not be able to double check. The company is the one that
contains the revenue numbers. So while asset inflation
is not a good thing, it rarely gives rise to financial fraud. Revenue inflation, on the other hand, is financial fraud and could carry with it lots of different kinds of liability. So I wish that the Congress people had differentiated between the two, because they focused
mainly on asset inflation as opposed to revenue inflation. – [Virginia] So you don’t
commit to changing your ways, basically, because you wanna
continue to use your background as a liar, a cheater, a
convicted liar, to make money. That’s what you wanna do? – And that’s gonna get me a
book deal and a movie deal and a spot on television? I don’t think so. – The Republicans focused
a lot on a potential book or movie deal from Cohen,
that’s an interesting tactic for going after his bias. The more information Cohen
gives in this setting, the less valuable a book or
movie deal would be later on. On the other hand, the
more famous he can become and the more central of a player he is in this whole scenario, potentially that makes a book
or movie deal more lucrative. So, it cuts both ways, but I’m not sure that
that means we should not believe Cohen here. So I’m not sure it achieves the purpose that they’re trying to establish here. – The idea that a witness
would come to us who’s flawed, and you certainly are flawed, means they can never tell the truth and there is no validity whatsoever to a single word they say, would discredit every
single criminal trial of organized crime in the
history of the United States. Because all of them depend
on someone who’s turned. – So this hearing raises
a really interesting issue that comes up in trial all the time. Which is, what do you do
when you put a known liar up on the stand? Well, if you’re the
proponent of the witness, then you have to explain
the witness’s motivation for why they were lying before and why they can be trusted now. And then the most
important thing you can do is bolster their current
testimony with documents. Have independent ways of verifying what they are testifying now is the truth. Now, if you are the other side
and you’re trying to dispute the evidence of someone
who has lied before, you obviously harp on the
fact that they did in fact lie and you should not trust them now. But you also have to establish reasons for why they would continue
to lie at the present date. So for example, if you were dealing with a confidential informant
in a criminal trial, you’d wanna harp on the
fact that whatever carrot the prosecution is
offering to this witness, is a reason for them to
make up new information. If the confidential informant
didn’t have new information to give the prosecution, their testimony would be worthless, so they have an incentive
to continue to lie. So of course the Republicans
here are harping on the fact that Cohen lied before
and cannot be trusted now. They have a difficult job here, because the lies that Michael Cohen told were for the benefit of the President, especially with respect
to the length and duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations. So every time the
Republicans raise the issue of Cohen’s prior bad
deeds, whether it’s lying or whether it is threatening
people with lawsuits, or whether it is illegally paying funds to pay off porn star mistresses, it raises the specter of who benefited from all of those acts. And in almost every single instance, the benefit of those
lies and illegal conduct is the President of the United States. The person the Republicans
presumably want to protect. So I don’t know if there is another theme that the Republicans could have gone with during this hearing, but the theme that they went with, which is that Michael Cohen
is a brute and a liar, is true and certainly damning, but it’s also damning to the person they’re trying to protect, the President in this particular case. – Is there any other
wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of
regarding Donald Trump that we haven’t yet discussed today. – Yes, and again, those are
part of the investigation that’s currently being looked at by the Southern District of New York. – Man, so that testimony is
a bombshell in and of itself. Cohen has testified that he is
aware of other criminal acts that surround President Trump. What I really wish the Congressman would have done is follow up. He could ask, how many criminal
acts is Cohen aware of? Whether there are other people that had not been indicted yet, who are responsible for
those criminal acts. And perhaps Cohen would
respond with the same answer that says, I can’t talk about that because there’s an ongoing investigation with the Southern District of New York. But that’s a good answer
for the Democrats. – And isn’t it also true that convicted Russian mobster Sater even had business cards indicating that he was a senior
advisor to Donald Trump, as reported to the Washington Post? – [Michael] Yes. – Did convicted Russian mobster Sater pay rent for his office? – [Michael] No, he did not. – So what I want point out
the Congressman is doing here is he’s repeating a theme. He’s asking questions about Felix Sater, and every time he says
the name Felix Sater, he says convicted Russian
mobster, Felix Sater. It might sound ridiculous, but over time it sticks in your head. So every time you think
of the name Felix Sater, you’re gonna think of, oh, he’s
a convicted Russian mobster. Of course, the person
who does that the most is probably President Trump himself, where he will give
nicknames to individuals to engender certain ideas and emotions about individuals by repeating that name that he has created for them. So that’s what he’s trying to do here. – [Ralph] Let me ask you this, Mr. Cohen, have you legally or illegally
recorded other clients? – I have recordings of people, yes. – [Ralph] Legally or illegally? – I believe that they’re legal. – [Ralph] Did you tell him? – In New York State you
don’t have to do that. – [Ralph] So you didn’t tell him? – No, I did not. – These are interesting questions, as a practicing lawyer
Michael Cohen recorded his client’s conversations with him. As Cohen actually correctly points out, New York is a one-party consent state, which means the person who is recording is the one that consents to the recording and therefore you don’t
have to notify other people. It is unusual for a lawyer
to record his clients, but it may not in and
of itself be illegal. If I was a client, I
certainly wouldn’t want that and I don’t think I would an attorney who did record his clients. But as an ethical violation
or as a legal matter, I’m not sure that it’s illegal. I’d have to check, but my instinct is that in and of itself,
it’s probably not illegal. – [Congressman] So in
your testimony on page 13, you claim, and I quote, “Mr. Trump directed me to
use my own personal funds “from a home equity line of credit “to avoid any money
being tracked back to him “that could negatively
impact his campaign.” Do you have any proof of this direction? – This is always a bad
question, do you have any proof? The question assumes
that there could be one single piece of evidence that absolutely proves a particular point, when in reality when you’re
trying to prove something you use lots of tiny steps to ultimately get to your end result. And in response to a question
of you don’t have any proof, the witness could just go off for days about all of the different
pieces of evidence that support the things
that he’s trying to say, while not absolutely
in one particular step proving the ultimate idea. So number one, Cohen does have proof in the form of different kinds of evidence to support his case, and number two, you don’t know how he’s going to answer this question. He’s not going to give up the ghost and admit, oh, I have no
corroborating evidence whatsoever. So, it’s a bad question to ask, and it’s something that I
find particularly annoying as an attorney. Okay, those are my thoughts
about the Cohen hearing. This is more group therapy
than it is a legal explainer. Michael Cohen is going
to jail for a long time. But he could put that time to good use by learning a new skill, especially since he’s been disbarred by the state of New York. For example, he’d really
benefit from Simon Van Booy’s Skillshare class on 6 Steps
to a Successful Writing Habit. He could channel all the time he used to spend writing letters threatening colleges not to
release President Trump’s grades into creative writing. – And copies of letters I
wrote at Mr. Trump’s direction that threatened his high school, colleges, and the college board not to release his grades or SAT scores. – Or he could take Roxane Gay’s class on Crafting Personal Essays with Impact. It would really help him
write that Rule 35 motion to reduce his prison
sentence for good behavior. – It is for the benefit
of a Rule 35 motion, yes. – Skillshare is an
online learning community that has over 20,000
classes on everything, like lifestyle, design and technology. The first 500 LegalEagles
will get two free months of Skillshare when you
click on the link below. The free premium membership
gives you unlimited access to must-know topics so you
can improve your skills and learn new things. It could even get you out of jail earlier, like Michael Cohen. So click on the link, get two free months and start learning to
think like a lawyer today. So, do you agree? Leave your objections in the comments. Check out my other real
law reviews over here, and until next time, I
will see you in court.

100 thoughts on “A Rhetorical and Legal Analysis of Michael Cohen’s Testimony Before Congress (Real Law Review)

  1. fun fact.. not trumps attorneys.. cohens attorneys. this man lied through and through. 4:34

  2. All lawyers should be publicly hanged be the neck until they are dead. They are a pox on humanity and need to be eradicated. cheers

  3. Have you done 12 Angry Men yet? Can you even actually do that one? hmmm

  4. Is it just me or does Michael Cohen seem far too derpy to be an attorney?

  5. I dont know why I watch this channel I'm a farmer

  6. What’s with all the s**tty political figures from Arizona (like Jim Jordan and Joe Arpaio)?

  7. #lovedogs dogs can be really judgy and hold grudges. Never anger your pup. My mom learned that the hard way.

  8. I know there is a chance you may not read or reply to this but I love the green tie, I am a new subscriber who enjoy your reaction videos I myself enjoy watching the congressional hearings I have been watching alot of them on YouTube since about 2013. Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz are two of my favs Jim Jordon is another favourite as well. It would be enjoyable if you could be willing to react to some of these congressional debates with Jason and Trey among them for a few years ago, also a court drama series that my mom and i are both fans of for you to react to could be Judging Amy a series in which Amy Grey is juvenile court Judge and her mother Maxine Grey is a DHS Rep. for child services. Thanks for the well given legal representation. Look forward to more to come.

  9. The skillshare ad was savage af😂

  10. Oh!iWantedListenwatchhThis!itWasntOnNoticatioIdidntnotice!

  11. I'm sure I'm too late but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love a continuation of this.

  12. This channel has actually become frustrating for me. Why? Because I had this channel in mind when I originally watched the Cohen testimonies, and thus made me aware of how much of a bad job the congresspeople were doing. You said that a problem with the Republican side was them jumping through hoops trying to make him a liar while keeping Trump safe, and it felt like a lot, a LOT, of moral grandstanding and a waste of time. Their time is limited and instead if asking questions, it felt like they talked the whole time. The Democrats were bad in that they weren't following up and other such things.one of the things that you have discussed as a lawyer is that in court trials the arguments are not formed in trial, but they are formed beforehand with the materials from the discovery, so it makes me wonder if anybody had such things as materials or discoveries or the like. This is to say that nobody felt like they had a plan.

  13. Everyone says he's going to jail for "a long time", but as far as I know he's getting 5 years? Compared to decades or more, that doesn't seem like a lot. I admit I've never been to jail, but still

  14. Lmfao Trump ain’t going away like that

  15. I don't know what your political alignment is, but whatever it is, I'm sure you found it very entertaining (not necessarily GOOD entertainment…). As a philosophy / pre-law student myself, I eat this stuff up!

  16. Do a video about Spotify and Apple music

  17. STELLAR! I scrolled through hundreds(literally) of Cohen Analysis Vids that were 100% MSM clips: pundits' bipartisan opinions. This surpassed my expectations with your insight and presentation. Thank you.

  18. I’d Like to see you do a video on FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his texts and behavior in Congress

  19. 22:28 with regards to the one-party consent issue, if asked, is the "consenting party" required to reveal that they are recording the conversation? As an example, let's say I'm talking to Michael Cohen in his NYC office, and he's recording our conversation (which was just stated that he's allowed to do), and I ask him if he's recording us, is he required to reveal it? If not, this seems like it could cause an issue if he does not reveal, and then I happen to say something I didn't want recorded- which is presumably why I asked.

    (I happen to live in NH, which is an "all-party consent" state, I'm just curious about this)

  20. Republican's basically were too aggressive, performed atrociously. Democrats didn't ask questuons properly but remained level headed… Wow things flipped 😂

  21. Trump 2020

  22. Wow I didnt know you could learn online at skillshare in jail.

  23. HAHAHAHA Now we know this is all BS

  24. I am curious to what extent the kind of blatant attempts at character assasination, and personal attacks, especially evident in the questions directed towards Mr. Cohen by Paul Gosar and Jim Jordan, are common and acceptable in a court of law?

  25. Cohen is testifying like he is a victim.

  26. Mr.Trump : It's all oger now.

  27. Legal eagle could the people pause the 2020 election #pause2020

  28. I watched all 7 hours of this over a couple of days and my absolute favorite moment is when Cohen said he has the cheque stubs in storage. The Republicans go try to slander him by saying why weren't these documents investigated after the raid and even went so far as to call a new investigation just for that. They did not at all listen to his answer that it was confiscated and then returned. Absolute baffons.

  29. The problem is Cohen ends up getting more criminal referrals. Because he went to Congress and lied again. And he contradicts herself multiple times in his testimony. Give me Giuliani,I wouldn't dare pay you to be my lawyer. Some big time lawyers will outclass you easily.🤣😂🤔🤣🤣😂

  30. anyone know of a good book (preferably audio-book) that does similar analysis like this (real law review of important or famous law interactions)?

  31. You should do a video explaining how to do the perfect product placement, because you are killing it with those transitions.

  32. OBJECTION 4:05 – “Michael Cohen is credible because he is not going scorched earth” Don’t you think Michael Cohen knows this? Michael Cohen is going to jail for lying to Congress. Not for engaging in hush money payments. If you google the analysis of the actual authors of the campaign finance laws being debated here, you will learn that no campaign finance laws were violated.

    10:23 Cohen’s testimony talks about him being proud to be the personal attorney. How does that jive with everything else he is saying about Trump being a complete reprobate all these years?

    13:50 Cohen is an admitted liar. So his words should not have the same weight as someone who is not going to prison for lying. If nothing else, it points out the weakness of his argument, because it is a he said, she said and one of the parties is a convicted liar.

    19:45 – The only beneficiary of Cohen’s lies is Trump? What about Michael Cohen being the beneficiary?

    22:15 – Unusual? Not sure if it is unethical? Of course it is unethical.

    I think you should stay away from politics, DJ. I think your personal feelings are clouding your judgement on these matters. I think the biggest giveaway is how you edited the video. You omitted a lot of compelling clips from Jim Jordan that really did damage to Michael Cohen. I like your videos better when you focus on entertainment. This content relating to politics is not very appealing to someone like me, especially when it looks like you’re only going to be providing one side of the argument.

  33. Stella sure is quite the QT3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993715058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 I would definitely pet her 11/10

  34. Objection: So if someone is accused of being racist than attempting to prove he isn’t is racism and tokenism? So if you are accused of being a racist then you have to just accept it? I’m sorry but that’s a nonsense response to that, as far as I’m concerned the Republicans gave an appropriate response and the burden is back on his opponents to prove Trump is racist

  35. my main issue with this testimony is Michael Cohen met with "fixers" before it, gives me doubt that alot was his words.

  36. OBJECTION: You skipped AOC's questioning, which is pretty much on par for all the things you wished all the other knuckleheads did.

  37. i want this guy as my senator

  38. Mr EagleEagle…. I object to you having a real job!
    It stops you from doing what really important…. Uploading video for my pleasure….. so yeah… quit your high paying job and upload 2-3 video a day!

  39. Objection: We need followup videos. Unless it's just more of congress lacking follow through.

  40. Analyze the Alex Jones deposition!

  41. I can't believe I havent found your channel until now! Your sober, clear and impartial analysis of this very well-talked-about hearing is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for this video

  42. Per Alan Dershowitz, who I believe we can all agree is a great legal scholar, the fact that Trump made hush money payments to women he slept with multiple times before the campaign makes the payment to Stormy Daniels NOT a FEC violation (Ben Shapiro also says the same thing). Also, Cohen plead guilty to a non-crime because he was scared of being prosecuted (per Dershowitz) 🤷‍♂️ So all things considered I think it’s fair to say Cohen is a pretty bad lawyer.

  43. Also, you know you’ve lost the argument when you bring up the holocaust

  44. And there’s a case to be made that Stormy Daniels is extorting Trump because she freely signed a NDA and was paid and is now going back on that agreement and smearing Trump. Why come out now and not before she signed the NDA?

  45. Please consider doing the Zuckerberg hearing. Especially the parts that didn't make the evening news.
    Like illegally obtaining other's personal information and it not being a big deal.
    If you can cut through all the bought and paid for questions that added up to how great are you? why is everyone else so stupid mr. Zuckerberg? There are some good and important questions in there that people should be much more aware of.

  46. Objection: Mr. Cohen is not going to prison for making legal monetary settlements on behalf of his client, Donald Trump (then candidate Trump). Also, Mr. Cohen made those payments out of his pocket (or so he said) and then President Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen.

    Also, I watched this hearing too, you picked very lousy arguments for one side, and only the good arguments from the other.

  47. Between Cohen and Kavanaugh it almost seemed to me that the democrats were so inept were tanking on purpose

  48. you will surely get an attaboy from the dems for this devin

  49. You'd think Congress would be able to afford pop filters for their mics

  50. Oh…Ok..Cohen is a Kabbalist, apparently (check red bracelet)…

  51. So, why should we have believed Cohen? Seems to me he had a very big ax to grind, and his testimony reeked of grinding. And the fact the he, himself, made a practice of lying when he thought it would serve him, even if he was wrong about that, should give us pause as to whether we should believe anything that he said. Objection! This was not a trial in a court of law. The same rules of evidence and procedure do not apply. History has shown that the lines of questioning are vastly different between a court of law and testimony in Congress. This was not about truth, nor was it about protocol, this was 100% political.

  52. Wouldn't it be easy for a lawyer to discredit Michael Cohen if he's already been convicted for lying? Combine that with the fact that he might be getting a deal from the prosecution to testify and I couldn't possibly trust anything he says.

  53. Esh, Lawyers are supposed to tell you the law, not break it for you. They are supposed to not be party to crimes.

    I do like how efficient he is a hawking his sponsers.

    Cohen made a point of running a go fund me page to release his clients info. Clearly something that is beyond the pail.

  54. Objection: look at President Trump’s history of hiring people of color. As I do, he simply does not care about the melanin content of his people. All he cares about is their abilities. Surprised you went down that path. But at least I finally have a real objection! 😂

  55. Objection! Stella is not a beagle, but apparently a…poodle, or something.

  56. In hindsight after what we know about the Mueller Report, I feel like the Cohen testimony helps bolster a specific narrative about Trump: he operates like a mob boss would and very much like a scammy con-man. I think it's important to frame this aspect if this lying and personality. As a whole, he's made decisions as President on the fly because he's insincere, ignorant and egotistical. He thinks simply "being him" means he's making good decisions and saying good things. And I think between this testimony, the report and his tweets it's very clear. I wish his base; and technically fans, would see the truth of this. He's been marketing himself to those around him his whole life, his business associates and now the public and republican party. He's essentially a loser though, as his businesses and revolving White House administration has shown; stability is not his strong suit.

  57. I'm late to this one, but omg the plugs at the end kill me. I'm at my desk cracking up right now.

  58. We definitely know where you fall on this (Fake Biased Law Review)

  59. If you don't want your conversation recorded in a one party consent state/province and you have no choice but to talk to this person is there any remedy to prevent them from recording you?

  60. This proves Trump is a MORON… even if he isn't. Cohen could have been Trump's Ollie North to Reagan if he did it right. However, Trump was too Trump to be so smart. When Cohen started getting heat and started drowning in legal bills, Trump said "good luck, stay quiet" and abandoned him to fiscal and legal ruin. Moron. Cohen was Trump's version of Reagan's Ollie North in this situation. If he supported Cohen's legal troubles (repaid Cohen's loyalty with loyalty like smart co-conspirators and even good businessmen do), Cohen would have taken all the heat as North did. Reagan-Bush got away with what is essentially high treason thanks to Ollie North taking all the heat. If Trump was not such a moron, he would have primed Micheal Cohen to be his Olliver North. The orange clown betrayed his former fixer Cohen in his disconnect with reality via arrogance, stupidity, insanity, etc… whatever.
    I'm starting to suspect that the Republicans have a really horrible GOP guy that is really likable for a candidate to be nominated because he (she?) isn't so Trump who can actually NOT be hated by the entire world and Trump was part of that plan.

  61. Why don't congresspeople in these hearings consult with lawyers in order to know the right questions to ask? It seems like a lot of missed opportunities.

  62. I so appreciate your well-reasoned, logical explanations. It should be more common on the internet.

  63. There were no “bombshells.” He offered nothing we hadn’t heard before. There’s never been any evidence that Trump used his campaign funds for the hush money. He’s oblivious capable of using his own vast personal wealth. It’s known that Cohen went to Trump and asked him for a pardon before the testimony. Trump had refused. He also accidentally confirmed another lie in an interview around the testimony. I’m surprised no one talked about how one Democrat kept asking about when certain Russians were met with in different countries. The media had been pushing the stories only for Cohen to deny them. Also, a few weeks ago in a conversation on a phone, Cohen unknowingly confirmed that he had had his wife threatened to be brought into it and he’d have get even more years if he didn’t come up with something or at least make claims look more believable. But of course he’s been a liar for years.

  64. Thanks for helping me sort out all this legal stuff! You make my joy at watching Trump bury himself in criminal filth all the more satisfying. I just HOPE the Democrats can bring themselves to at least spank Trump with a sock.

  65. Sounds like what I always thought our Congress is full of oblivious bumbling morons

  66. This whole trump being president thing reminds me of Julius Caesar we are really on a trajectory of ancient Rome

  67. Would a book or TV deal be profiting from his crime? I thought that was not allowed.


  69. Wow, super fascinating!! Thank you for enlightening us!

  70. More like this!

  71. It seems like the congressmen on both sides were very stupid and unprepared. You would think that they would spend some time talking with a lawyer before interviewing someone this important to both sides, to avoid many of the glaring mistakes that you pointed out.

  72. 3 years, damn what a killer sentence.

  73. Objection! … I don't have an objection. But Stella is the CUTEST adorable puppo! I will smash that like button. (Also becuase I have learned so much from you, seriously. You stay objective and tell facts and lay it out so even we can understand). 😀

  74. Attorney client privilege also doesn't apply when the client is actively committing a crime.

    If the client is asking the attorney to commit a crime, that also nullifies the privilege in that insurance.

    Of course, that doesn't mean the privilege is completely broken. It just means the conversations that are about active illegal activity are not protected.

  75. I love your tie…that is all..

  76. Objection: He does have reason to want to lie. It is based on his evident hatred and resentment for Trump.

  77. Cute tie

  78. Thanks for that clarification of "asset inflation" versus "revenue inflation." I never heard that before. LOVE THIS CHANNEL!

  79. Haha, the "TV Lawyer" jab from Cohen (referring to Crazy Rudy, I think) always gets me.

  80. I never watched his testimony so these questions might have been asked.

    "Mr. Cohen, when you last testified before us, were you or were you not sworn to tell the truth?" His answer, "Yes I was".

    "Mr. Cohen, after you testified before us were you or were you not convicted of lying under oath?" His answer, "Yes, I was".

    "Are you here now again under oath?" His answer, "Yes I am".

    "I therefore, based upon your pattern of behavior, will not accept anything you say here as truthful and any evidence you provide be judged as hearsay."

  81. This was all a nothing burger. If there was anything nefarious, Mueller would have presented it

  82. Stellla is adorable.

  83. This is boring and you're an obvious progressive shill.

  84. Cohen's "comments " Are just that Comments. They could be true or not true. In my opinion they are not facts or evidence. During a trial the jury is instructed to give Witnesses all the credibility that they deserve. Cohen has every reason to lie and few reasons to tell the truth. The media was looking for a reason to destroy the rest of his life. Since trump hired Cohen to lie for him his credibility is worth nothing in my opinion. The man was paid by Trump To lies. To now take his word seems extremely silly.

  85. What an idiot…After he takes skillshare he should write a book "How to hire a bad lawyer"

  86. is this a real video or is it photoshopped?

  87. Objection: 5:00 Cohen is going to jail for being a shit bag attorney running a tax dodge in NYC. It seems you need some help with this.
    Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVptDoKBsck

  88. Objection: Here's the reason for "continued lying". Rather than lying, it's wishful thinking: Trump for sure put pressure on Cohen to solve his problems and Cohen didn't know how to solve this mess other than by creating more. Now, as everybody hates Trump, it's very easy for him to retrospectively reinterpret the generic pressure for an actual order. It's human nature and happens a lot.

  89. This is great. I need to watch this more than once.

  90. Ovbj. Small small voice* yin yang. Who's glass are we looking though? And why

  91. This is really good analysis.

  92. I'd love to see you react to the Omar Little court scene from Season 2 of The Wire. Shows an interesting dramatisation of what you talk about in this video, about having a known criminal on the stand.

  93. Where is the episodes reacting to the West Wing?

  94. Cohan lied and to date cummings has done nothing. Its been proven

  95. One of my favorite channels!

  96. Stella!!! 💕

  97. And now Cumming is taking fire in the bow….

  98. Potentially, the republicans could have attacked Cohen's ability to tell the truth, by making him out to be a person who loves attention, using his often interviews to cable news and his willinsness to do whatever for one of the most influecial and well known characters in the US, and then square it with his now solo act, where all the attention is on him.

    It might have been a better theme, that might would have helped mitigate some of the bigger classical bombshells, as "It's just cause he wants to look important".

  99. Objection: Grammar
    Not effective = ineffective

  100. Cohen is hero against Mafia Trump.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *