Testimony reveals Michael Cohen’s anger: Trump didn’t offer D.C. job or pay $130,000

An attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels testified Thursday that Donald Trump‘s lawyer, Michael Cohen, complained that he wasn’t joining Mr. Trump in Washington after the 2016 election and wasn’t being repaid $130,000 in hush money given to Ms. Daniels.

The attorney, Keith Davidson, described the December 2016 exchange to the jury as prosecutors outlined an alleged scheme between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen to avoid bad press before the election and criminally conceal the Daniels payment throughout 2017.

He said Mr. Cohen, over the phone, complained about the lack of an administration role and that he hadn’t gotten the “$130,000 back.”

“Jesus Christ, can you believe I’m not going to Washington?” Mr. Cohen said, according to Mr. Davidson. “I’ve saved that guy’s ass so many times, you don’t even know.”

Mr. Cohen, who no longer works for Mr. Trump, went from being his top “fixer” to his most outspoken detractor.

Mr. Davidson said he remembered the call because he was standing in a California store with a distinctive “Alice in Wonderland” decor.

He is testifying in Mr. Trump‘s hush money trial because he facilitated payments to Ms. Daniels before the election. As the press got wind of the payments, he testified that Mr. Cohen texted him demanding a denial of Ms. Daniels‘ story about a sexual encounter.

In a 2018 statement, Ms. Daniels acknowledged press reports about a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump but seemed to deny that it happened.

“I am saying with complete clarity that this is absolutely false,” Ms. Daniels said.

Mr. Davidson said a fine reading of the wording of the statement could make it seem like Ms. Daniels was being truthful.

“I think you’d have to hone in on the definition of ‘romantic,’ ‘sexual’ and ‘affair,’” Mr. Davidson said, repeating terms in the statement. “I don’t think that anyone had alleged that any interaction between she and Mr. Trump was romantic.”

“I think this is a tactic that is oftentimes used in the oftentimes cat-and-mouse interactions between publicists and attorneys and the press,” he said. “An extremely strict reading of this denial would technically be true.”

Leave a Reply


Your email address will not be published.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