“We are deeply concerned by reports suggesting that the U.S. Marshal Service did not provide medically necessary health care services to two prisoners in its custody: Ms. Jean Marshall, 74, and Heather Idoni, 59,” House Pro-Life Caucus Co-Chairmen Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Andy Harris (R-MD) wrote to USMS Director Ronald Davis and BOP Director Colette Peters.

“We ask Director Davis to provide a clear and comprehensive account of the care provided to Ms. Idoni and Ms. Marshall during their time in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service,” the letter continued, also calling on Peters to “advise us on what actions the Bureau of Prisons has taken to ensure Ms. Marshall is receiving appropriate care.”

“We also ask for information on actions the Bureau of Prisons plans to take to provide appropriate care for Ms. Idoni if she is placed in Bureau of Prison custody,” the letter added, which was also signed by Judiciary subcommittee Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Chip Roy (R-TX), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Claudia Tenney (R-NY), and Debbie Lesko (R-AZ).

Marshall and Idoni were both convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act for blockading access to an abortion clinic in Northwest Washington, D.C., in October 2020. Since August 2023, Idoni has been in the custody of the USMS, according to the lawmakers, and Marshall has been in custody since September 2023.

Marshall was sentenced to 15 additional months in prison on May 25, and Idoni is scheduled to be sentenced next week. Idoni will also be sentenced on July 30 for convictions of conspiracy and FACE Act convictions in an unrelated clinic blockade from Tennessee, according to the Justice Department.

The Republicans’ letter details a report that Idoni suffered a stroke about two weeks ago and had three stents placed above her heart. She was allegedly told to take daily doses of heart medicine, but at the time of publication on Monday, she said she had not been given a single dose.

Idoni reportedly raised her concerns with prison officials, but she said a nurse told her after six days that jail records indicated that she received her daily dose. Idoni is concerned that her medical records are being falsified and told a reporter that “she was frightened that she might die.”

Idoni is said to also suffer from diabetes, and she has said the jail has not offered her diabetes medication, leaving her without any prescription.

Marshall, on the other hand, was allegedly denied hip surgery despite struggling with the ability to walk and two emergency room visits since the time of her incarceration. Marshall said she was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in both hips and was scheduled for surgery in October 2023 but was not allowed to keep that date.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The lawmakers gave Davis and Peters until Friday to respond.

The Washington Examiner reached out to the USMS and BOP for comment.

The schedule, if it holds, would mean a verdict on whether Trump falsified business records could also come by the end of next week, but jury deliberations could stretch for days if needed.

Judge Juan Merchan initially estimated that the trial, which began April 15, would last six to eight weeks, putting it on track to end slightly ahead of schedule.

Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche said when court proceedings ended on Thursday that he planned to conclude his cross-examination of the prosecution’s final witness, Michael Cohen, by Monday morning, according to reports from the courtroom.

From there, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team will have an opportunity to ask Cohen follow-up questions, and then the trial will flip to the defense to present its side of the case. Blanche indicated that Trump’s team might only call one witness to the stand, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith.

Smith is expected to speak about campaign finance laws, as Trump is facing allegations that he conspired to violate those laws by paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Merchan has severely limited Smith to talking only in general terms and not specifically about Trump.

Trump has not testified, and Blanche said he is unsure whether Trump will take the stand next week.

While the former president said several times ahead of his trial that he planned to testify, a decision by Merchan to permit prosecutors to question Trump about some of his unrelated legal troubles, including that he was found liable for business fraud in an unrelated trial, presented a dilemma for Trump.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Trump is facing 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal the payment to Daniels, though prosecutors have struggled throughout the case to demonstrate that Trump had detailed knowledge of the process of paying Daniels. Evidence has shown that Cohen made the payment and that former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg oversaw the bookkeeping elements of it.

Before jury deliberations, Merchan will instruct the jury on how to assess the charges, and from there, jurors must reach a unanimous decision. If they cannot, Merchan would declare a mistrial.

The former U.S. Army sergeant was convicted in April 2023 for the killing of Garrett Foster. Working as an Uber driver, Perry said he encountered a group of protesters that surrounded his car in downtown Austin. Perry’s lawyer said that he acted in self-defense when he shot Foster, who was legally holding an AK-47. The ex-Army sergeant shot Foster five times with a revolver, then drove away and called 911.

Before being sentenced to 25 years in prison, Perry’s social media and text messages were used by prosecutors to portray him as racist despite the fact that Foster was also white. The court had also unsealed dozens of pages of text messages and social media posts revealing Perry’s negative view of the Black Lives Matter protests.

Perry’s conviction garnered the attention of then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who called on Abbott to intervene. Abbott asked the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to expedite the review of Perry’s conviction. Under Texas law, a recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles is required before the governor can make a pardon. The recommendation by the board to pardon Perry was a unanimous decision.

“Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney,” Abbott said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza accused the governor and board of placing “politics over justice.”

“They should be ashamed of themselves,” Garza said. “Their actions are contrary to the law and demonstrate that there are two classes of people in this state where some lives matter and some lives do not. They have sent a message to Garrett Foster’s family, to his partner, and to our community that his life does not matter.”

Trump attorney Todd Blanche presented evidence of call logs and text messages while cross-examining Cohen and compared them to details Cohen gave prosecutors two days ago about a key conversation he allegedly had with Trump about porn star Stormy Daniels, according to courtroom updates from Politico.

The evidence revealed that on the evening of Oct. 24, 2016, the same time as the alleged conversation about Daniels, Cohen messaged Trump’s bodyguard Keith Schiller about harassing calls Cohen had been receiving from a 14-year-old.

The phone logs showed Schiller called Cohen back a few minutes later and left a voicemail and that Cohen then returned Schiller’s call and had a conversation that lasted about a minute and a half.

Blanche pressed Cohen on how the call could have possibly been about Daniels.

“That was a lie,” Blanche shrieked in reference to Cohen’s prior testimony. “You can admit it.”

Prosecutors had asked Cohen on Monday about the call, and Cohen replied that he called Schiller because he knew Trump was with his bodyguard.

Cohen testified that he called “to discuss the Stormy Daniels matter and the resolution of it.”

The call occurred three days before Cohen wired a $130,000 payment to Daniels as part of a settlement agreement. The agreement involved Daniels staying silent right before the 2016 election about a claim that she once had a sexual encounter with Trump.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, faces the challenge of convincing a jury that Trump conspired with Cohen to make the payment and knowingly concealed it in his financial records.

The call on Oct. 24 is one of only a few instances Bragg can point to that could prove Trump was informed about Daniels and the payment. But that evidence is entirely reliant on Cohen’s recollection, and Cohen’s credibility has been a glaring concern during the trial.

Cohen began to walk back his testimony from Monday, telling Blanche “part of” the call was about the 14-year-old.

“You had enough time in one minute and 36 seconds to update Mr. Schiller about all the harassing phone calls and the update on Stormy Daniels?” Blanche asked incredulously.

When Blanche told Cohen he could admit he was lying, Cohen replied that his belief was that the conversation was about Daniels.

“No, sir, I can’t [admit it],” Cohen said. “I believe that I also spoke to Mr. Trump and told him everything regarding Stormy Daniels was being worked on and it’s going to be resolved.”

“We are not asking for your belief,” Blanche shot back. “This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Blanche also clarified with Cohen that at no time in past depositions or statements did Cohen ever say the Oct. 24 call was about Daniels. Cohen only made the claim after he rehearsed his testimony with Bragg’s team in the lead-up to his appearance on the stand, Blanche observed.

“Yes, that refreshed my memory,” Cohen said.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche spent the better part of the 18th day of the trial working to paint a picture for the 12-member jury of Cohen as a proven liar who pleaded guilty to crimes associated with those lies and used his cooperation as part of those pleas to obtain a shorter prison sentence. Cohen was measured at first, but courtroom reporters noted that he began to get animated under cross-examination on Thursday.

“When you plead guilty to a crime, one of the things you get — one of the benefits you get — is a little time off your sentence … correct?” Blanche asked. Cohen agreed he would get a reduction, to which Blanche replied, “You got that credit even though you lied.”

Cohen has admitted some responsibility for the 34-count felony hush money charges Trump now faces in New York, but he has suggested that he should not have been charged in 2018 for campaign finance violations tied to the payment in 2016 he made to porn star Stormy Daniels, who was threatening to come forward with allegations of an affair with Trump back in 2006. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies the affair.

Blanche also challenged Cohen’s past statements that he never asked for nor would have accepted a pardon from Trump, calling that a lie as well.

“So, when you said you never asked for and would never accept a pardon, that was a lie, wasn’t it?” Blanche asked. 

“At the time it was accurate,” Cohen said, before admitting from the stand that he did explore a pardon from Trump with his lawyers, contrary to what he told Congress in 2017 while under oath.

Cohen’s voice at one point became more animated when he explained why he felt he should not have been charged as a first-time tax evader in 2018. He blamed a variety of people for his actions, including his accountant, federal prosecutors, and the bank, according to CNN.

Notably, some reporters in the room said that Trump appeared to perk up when Cohen was seemingly under duress. Trump at times has been closing his eyes in court, although not necessarily sleeping, as testimony proceeds.

Cohen also confirmed he had a practice of asking certain people to delete their communications with him at times, including former publisher of the National Enquirer David Pecker, who helped to silence negative stories about Trump before the 2016 election.

Blanche also hit out on how Cohen was never given a cooperation agreement by any prosecutors — not by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, not by special counsel Robert Mueller, and not by the Manhattan district attorney.

Cohen said it was “correct” that he was meeting with and providing information to prosecutors.

“But ultimately that did not result in a cooperation agreement?” Blanche asked.

“That’s correct,” Cohen answered.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The exchange appeared to be an effort by the defense to illustrate that no prosecutors saw Cohen as trustworthy enough to enter a cooperation deal with him.

Cross-examination is expected to continue into Thursday afternoon.

Trump’s former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen is set to take the witness stand again Thursday for his second day of cross-examination by the former president’s defense team. The trial has pushed forward at a steady pace and is ahead of schedule, yet prosecutors have left a glaring hole in their argument that Trump is guilty of 34 felony counts of business record falsifications in the first degree.

The problem prosecutors face is that they must first prove the falsification of business records, which is a misdemeanor, and then the felony “escalator,” or the claim that the records were falsified with the intent to conceal or aid in the commission of another offense, former federal prosecutor Katie Cherkasky told the Washington Examiner.

By the time the prosecution finished questioning Cohen on Tuesday morning, they had not clearly laid out what additional crime Trump was aiming to facilitate by allegedly falsifying records, though they appeared to rely heavily on Cohen’s decision to stop being loyal to Trump when he pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2018. Cohen’s plea was in relation to a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to hide her story of an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.

One potential object offense prosecutors say Trump could be culpable of is a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the same federal campaign finance law Cohen pleaded guilty to violating.

But Cherkasky said she and many lawyers “don’t think that you can incorporate a federal offense that isn’t within the jurisdiction of the New York court as the escalating offense,” adding that doing so would turn into a bigger problem for an appellate court if the jury voted to convict Trump.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, brought the indictment against Trump in April 2023 with the help of a COVID-19-era law that allowed the state to extend its statute of limitations by a year. Without that change, prosecutors could not have brought the case against Trump because falsifying business records is a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations.

Simply put, Bragg’s team is seeking to prove two underlying allegations against Trump: that the 11 checks he paid to Cohen in 2017 were misclassified as “legal expenses” in order to cover up hush money payments and that it was done for electoral reasons rather than merely to save Trump from personal embarrassment. The former president has denied Daniels’s allegations about the alleged affair and contends the lump $420,000 amount he paid Cohen was for legal work.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has said the “primary” crime his office is seeking to use to prove a conspiracy is Section 17-152 under New York law, which is conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. However, Bragg did not charge Trump with any election-related offenses and has hinted there are three other “potential object offenses” that Trump may have committed, adding more confusion to the mix.

Another “potential problem” for the 12-member jury is their task to find “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the alleged falsification of business records was done to cover up another crime, according to former federal prosecutor David Sklansky.

“If I had to bet, I would say that the jury ultimately will be convinced that this was done to cover up another crime, but the theory that they have to follow in order to find that is a little convoluted, and I think that even for most lawyers who have been following the trial, it’s been a little difficult to figure out exactly what the DA’s theory is,” Sklansky said in a recent interview.

And if prosecutors want to rely on Cohen’s 2018 guilty plea to the campaign finance violation, then they must confront the fact that the Federal Election Commission dropped its investigation into whether Trump violated election law with the Daniels payment in May 2021. Additionally, the Justice Department under the Biden administration declined to charge Trump with any crimes related to the payment after investigating.

Cherkasky said the true description of the “other crime” prosecutors are trying to prove that Trump committed may not be revealed until presiding Judge Juan Merchan hands the jury instructions when the time comes for a verdict in the case, which could come as soon as the first week of June.

Moreover, Cherkasky said Bragg’s team will likely argue for “very specific instructions that make it easy to prove their case … and then the defense is going to have their chance to argue against it.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“The judge’s instructions are going to be very critical. That’s going to tell us all of the answers to these things in terms of how the judge is interpreting this,” Cherkasky said.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche said Tuesday he expects cross-examination of Cohen will continue from Thursday morning into the afternoon. The trial is taking a break on Friday, and the defense will begin presenting their case and witnesses on Monday.

Part One: Trump trial in Georgia built on weak foundation

A straightforward indictment alleging former President Donald Trump hoarded national defense information in Florida has unraveled into a hurdle-plagued case with no clear end in sight.

The case has become rife with concerns of missteps on the part of special counsel Jack Smith, while Trump’s arguments that his charges should be dropped continue to weigh heavily as the court process plays out.

The judge has also done no favors for Smith, who has urged an expeditious prosecution at every turn. When the judge released a schedule this month, she not only left out a trial date but also pushed already-delayed deadlines out several weeks.

Below is a look at the case’s top issues.

Smith slip-ups

The case has become littered with complaints from Trump and his two co-defendants about Smith that threaten to upend it. Most recently, Smith’s team revealed it had jumbled items that might later be used as evidence.

The potential evidence was found during the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022. During the search, investigators gathered boxes full of documents, including some with classified markings, according to the indictment.

Prosecutors disclosed in court papers this month that although the investigators took great pains to make certain that documents were not moved from the boxes in which they were found, they did not always preserve the order of the documents within the boxes. They also admitted to misrepresenting the state of discovery to the court in previous statements despite maintaining that the order of the contents in boxes was insignificant.

Trump’s attorneys not only secured a delay in proceedings because of the revelation, but they also signaled they would not let the issue go. They warned they may file requests for Judge Aileen Cannon to sanction Smith “based on spoliation.” The sanctions could include more requests to dismiss the charges.

Walt Nauta, one of Trump’s co-defendants, was the first to notice the discovery issue, but before that, Nauta’s attorney also accused Smith’s team of impropriety on a different front.

Nauta’s attorney Stanley Woodward said in a court filing that Department of Justice prosecutor Jay Bratt made a veiled threat to him by referencing his pending judicial application during a meeting at DOJ headquarters in August 2022, long before Nauta was indicted.

Bratt, at the time, asked Woodward to have his client cooperate with the government on its investigation while wielding a folder of information about Woodward’s application for a judge position, Woodward claimed. Woodward described the moment as a stunning quid pro quo.

Prosecutors have disputed the account and said Woodward suspiciously did not raise the issue until months later, when he learned Nauta was the target of a grand jury investigation.

Jim Trusty, a lawyer of three decades who represented Trump in the classified documents case for a year, said he knew Woodward to be honest and that Bratt’s alleged behavior showed prosecutors had developed an “ends justify the means” mentality with Trump.

He told the Washington Examiner that Cannon could issue a ruling on the incident at some point and that there was also an easy opportunity to confirm what transpired.

“There’s a very logical exploration that should take place, which is you also make the Department of Justice turn over … any and all communications about that meeting,” Trusty said, noting others present at it could corroborate what happened.

Trusty, who used to work on organized crime at DOJ, said Woodward’s case was one example of how his former employer was practicing “lawfare” in Florida. Another example, he said, included the unprecedented search of the former president’s home at Mar-a-Lago. He said it appeared to be a fishing expedition based on the initially vague inventory list the FBI produced from it. He also observed how the National Archives and Records Administration in 2022 made a first-ever criminal referral of Trump to the DOJ in coordination with President Joe Biden’s White House.

“The more inventive these prosecutors are, the more hyper-aggressive they are, the more there’s a chance that at the trial level or at the appellate level or the Supreme Court level, that people smell a rat and they say, ‘This is not our criminal justice system,'” Trusty said.

Trump’s dismissal arguments

Trump has filed several requests for Cannon to dismiss his charges, and some remain pending.

In the pending requests, defense attorneys argued the prosecution has been “selective and vindictive,” that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel, and that the charges “stem from” Trump’s official acts as president.

Cannon has yet to rule on these three motions and has scheduled hearings to examine them further, signaling she is seriously considering them.

While Cannon has already denied Trump’s two other requests for dismissal, she left open the possibility that Trump could raise those concerns again in the future.

In one of the denied requests, Trump made the argument that he and many of his allies, such as the conservative legal group America First Legal, have most forcefully pushed: that Trump was authorized to possess the documents in question as his personal property under the Presidential Records Act.

Cannon said in her order that the question of whether the PRA, a statute established in response to the Watergate scandal, protected Trump was premature and could resurface during trial.

Trump in his second denied request argued the allegations by Smith that he willfully retained national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act were “unconstitutionally vague.”

Cannon denied that request without prejudice, meaning Trump could also raise that argument again later in the case.

Judge’s pace

Cannon’s decision to keep the trial on hold indefinitely as she entertains many of Trump’s challenges and continues to grant his requests for extensions has bogged down the case.

Smith has repeatedly referenced his desire to move things along, citing the “Speedy Trial Act,” which gives defendants a right to a timely prosecution.

However, the special counsel was dealt his greatest blow to the timeline yet last week when Cannon, a Trump appointee, scrapped the original trial date of May 20 and declined to set a new one.

“Finalization of a trial date at this juncture — before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming — would be imprudent,” Cannon wrote in an order, citing court precedent.

CIPA refers to the Classified Information Procedures Act, which governs how plaintiffs and defendants handle classified evidence in a case. Adhering to CIPA requires adding several steps into the normal pretrial routine, inevitably lengthening the amount of time that will elapse before a trial.

Cannon first extended CIPA deadlines at the end of last year, and the initial trial date was never realistic after that. But her most recent scheduling order pushed deadlines out to July, added in new hearings, and included a warning that more delays could come.

When she does set a trial, it is possible at this stage that it could be after the presidential election, leaving open the possibility that Trump could win and then direct his attorney general to halt the prosecution or pardon himself.

Cannon’s approach has sparked the gamut of reactions, from praise to criticism to panic.

Trump’s supporters have found the judge to be refreshingly critical of prosecutors, unlike some of the judges presiding over other cases against him. His opponents have said Cannon is overly sympathetic toward the president who appointed her and that her pace is reflective of her lack of experience with cases involving classified documents.

National security attorney Bradley Moss believes Trump “hit the lottery” with Cannon.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The pretrial process has taken “months longer than it should have for what is arguably the cleanest” of Trump’s four criminal cases, Moss told the Washington Examiner.

“On the substance, Judge Cannon has ruled against Mr. Trump time and again. The delay in reaching those decisions, however, is where her actions have played right into Mr. Trump’s larger strategy of avoiding facing trial before the election,” Moss said. “There is little the government can do about it.”

Bob Costello, a longtime criminal defense attorney, told Congress that when Cohen took the stand on Tuesday and accused Costello of pressuring him to stay quiet about Trump in 2018, he was lying.

“I read Michael Cohen’s testimony from yesterday’s trial in New York on the way down on the train, and virtually every statement he made about me is another lie,” Costello said.

Costello’s remarks came during a House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing, during which he described his experience representing Cohen for a couple of months beginning in April 2018, when they first met, while the Department of Justice was investigating Cohen.

A few months later, in August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to several crimes, including tax evasion, lying to a bank, and campaign finance violations.

Costello said Cohen appeared desperate to find a way to avoid jail.

“I will do whatever the F I have to do. I will never spend one day in jail,” Costello recalled Cohen saying repeatedly during their first meeting at the Loews Regency Hotel in Manhattan.

Costello said Cohen was frantically seeking an “escape route” and had even admitted to contemplating jumping off the roof of the hotel two nights prior.

Costello said he advised Cohen to bring any damning information he had about Trump forward to the U.S. attorney’s office in New York and that this could help Cohen stay out of jail. However, Cohen replied that he had no evidence against Trump.

“I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump. … I don’t have anything on Donald Trump,” Costello recalled Cohen saying multiple times.

Cohen, Trump’s onetime fixer, was eventually sentenced to three years in prison for his crimes. As part of his plea deal, Cohen admitted to paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 to help Trump’s election prospects. Daniels had been threatening to go public with a claim that she had a sexual encounter with Trump 10 years prior.

Trump was never prosecuted by the DOJ over the matter, but Bragg brought charges against Trump several years later, alleging that Trump conspired with Cohen to issue the payment and then tried to hide it. Cohen, who flipped his position and became openly resentful toward Trump, is now Bragg’s star witness in the case and has spent the past two days testifying against Trump in the trial.

Although Bragg has relied on Cohen to deliver the most direct account to the jury of how Trump was allegedly in on the Daniels payment, Cohen’s credibility has long been a glaring concern for Bragg.

Costello told Congress that after Cohen had changed tunes and begun publicly implicating Trump, Costello tried to warn Bragg’s office that Cohen was an “inveterate liar.” Bragg, however, showed a lack of interest in hearing Costello’s story, he said.

Costello said that when he was questioned by Bragg’s grand jury, the prosecutors “did everything in their power not to ask me the questions that would elicit the exculpatory information.”

Costello said he also gave the same information to Trump’s defense team, signaling Trump’s attorneys could at some point call Costello to the witness stand in the trial.

Cohen’s testimony earlier this week contradicted what Costello told the House committee under oath on Wednesday.

Cohen accused Costello of dangling a pardon in front of him in 2018 as a “pressure campaign” to prevent him from snitching on Trump. Costello, who was in regular communication with Trump’s then-counsel Rudy Giuliani, painted himself as a “back channel” to Trump while Cohen was facing the prospect of prison, Cohen said.

Prosecutors submitted evidence in Trump’s trial that they said bolstered Cohen’s claims.

“I am sure you saw the news that Rudy is joining the Trump legal team. I told you my relationship with Rudy, which could be very, very useful for you,” Costello wrote in an email to Cohen on April 19, 2018.

Cohen testified that he perceived Costello’s communication to mean, “Don’t flip. Don’t speak. Don’t cooperate.”

“There was something really sketchy and wrong about him,” Cohen said of Costello.

Costello has been an attorney for five decades and once worked in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York. Costello told Congress he was able to speak about his conversations with Cohen because Cohen waived attorney-client privilege. The New York Times reported that Costello worked in an informal, unpaid capacity for Cohen.

Costello indicated he had a wealth of evidence to corroborate his side of the story and that Cohen was presenting a misleading narrative.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“He picks out, cherry-picks certain emails or text messages and tries to make them look like something else,” Costello said.

Cohen is expected to finish testifying in Trump’s trial on Thursday.

Barrett Blade, the husband of the porn star, made the comment after his wife provided testimony in the viral trial. When reflecting on his wife’s testimony, Blade described Daniels as “a warrior” who is “fighting for what she believes is right and telling the truth.”

“​​Either way, I don’t think it gets better for her,” Blade said. “I think if it’s not guilty, we got to decide what to do. Good chance we’ll probably vacate this country.”

Blade also said that a guilty verdict for Trump would not be much better for them, as they would expect to receive vitriol from Trump supporters. He added that he and Daniels do not see this verdict being beneficial for them regardless of how it goes, stating they “would like to get on with our lives.”

On Monday, a lawyer for Daniels, Clark Brewster, claimed that his client wore a bulletproof vest “every day” until she testified in the courthouse in Manhattan. Brewster also claimed that Daniels was afraid of what “some nut might do to her,” and that he also was concerned for the safety of his client.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Amid Trump’s legal feud in the Empire State, some people have shown up early outside the courthouse to attend the trial, with lines of people awaiting their seats becoming “crazy long.” One woman paid a person $750 to save her spot in the courtroom, while another person sold his spot to two people for $2,000.

Among those who have shown up for Trump’s trial are several Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), and even a couple of his former rivals in the 2020 Republican Party’s presidential primary, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) and billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.

Giuliani was indicted alongside 17 other officials — 11 of whom were named in the charging document — for their alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election in the Grand Canyon State. The indicted officials included Giuliani, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Trump campaign operative Mike Roman.

The office of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes told CNN it has served the other indicted officials but has been unable to deliver Giuliani his summons.

A spokesperson for Mayes’s office said they have made multiple attempts to deliver the notice to Giuliani that he has been indicted but that they have been unsuccessful. One of the attempts included an apartment building in New York City in which the front desk worker said he or she was not allowed to accept service of the summons but did not dispute that Giuliani lived there.

The notice that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office is attempting to deliver would inform Giuliani that he is to appear before a judge on May 21.

The April indictment of Giuliani alleges he and the other co-conspirators “schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters,” with “Unindicted Coconspirator 1” likely referring to former President Donald Trump.

The indictment in Arizona was the latest in a series of charges levied against Trump’s allies who allegedly attempted to overturn the 2020 election results after he lost to President Joe Biden in key swing states.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Trump lost the 2020 election in Arizona to Biden by less than 11,000 votes. The former president is leading Biden in most recent polls conducted in Arizona for the presidential election rematch in November.

The Washington Examiner reached out to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for comment.