Robert Costello, who once served as a legal adviser to Michael Cohen, has raised significant doubts about the strength of the New York case against former President Donald Trump.
According to Fox News, Costello asserts the charges lack evidential support, proclaiming the case was "dead on arrival."
On "The Brian Kilmeade Show," Costello, previously aligned with Michael Cohen, spoke at length about the ongoing NY v. Trump trial. He criticized the basis of the case and suggested that the charges against Trump were unfounded from the start.
Costello claims that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's team has overlooked exculpatory evidence that could potentially exonerate Trump. Having been released from his attorney-client confidentiality obligations recently, Costello is now free to openly discuss these details.
He emphasizes that his potential testimony would largely favor the defense, mainly due to questions surrounding Cohen's reliability as a witness. These concerns stem from a meeting in 2018, where Cohen, according to Costello, expressed severe emotional distress owing to his legal predicaments.
During this revealing 2018 meeting, Robert Costello recalls Michael Cohen's troubled state:
They were so bad in his mind that he was willing to risk his life. "He kept on saying over and over again, 10 to 20 times, 'I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything on Donald Trump.
Furthermore, Cohen disclosed to Costello that the decision to manage the Stormy Daniels non-disclosure agreement was made independently, ultimately aimed at shielding Melania Trump from potential embarrassment. According to Cohen, this decision was not driven by direct instructions from Trump but rather a personal initiative to manage the fallout.
Currently, as the NY v. Trump trial progresses, observations from Costello could potentially alter the public's perception of the case. Notably, Costello has expressed indifference towards the trial's jury, admitting he has not followed the proceedings closely nor formed any opinions regarding the jurors or their inclinations.
Robert Costello commented on the broader implications of the evidence—or lack thereof—that he could bring to the trial. He explained:
There's nothing that I know about this case that could give the prosecution more life. This case is dead. It was dead on arrival. It never should have been brought. It should have been dismissed by this judge.
The complications surrounding Cohen's credibility could be crucial in the ongoing legal drama. Costello's revelations about the 2018 meeting, where Cohen vehemently denied having incriminating information against Trump, align with a broader narrative of a politically charged trial.
Also noteworthy is the clarification about the Stormy Daniels agreement. "Cohen said, 'I didn't believe the allegation, but it would be embarrassing to Melania,' that's Michael Cohen's words he said, and so ‘I decided to take care of this myself.’" This detail on handling the NDA reiterates the personal initiative taken by Cohen, further complicated by the stressful circumstances he described.
As the NY v. Trump saga unfolds, the robustness of the prosecution's case remains under scrutiny. The insights from a former adviser to Cohen spotlight significant legal and personal dynamics that come into play. This unfolding story encapsulates key questions about legal strategies, witness credibility, and the boundaries of personal agency within high-stakes litigation.
Costello's perspective casts a shadow over the prosecution's efforts and underscores the contentious nature of high-profile legal battles in U.S. courts. With further developments expected, the implications of these assertions and testimonies will likely resonate beyond the courtroom.
