Michael Cohen, maybe probably the most anticipated trial witness in fashionable reminiscence, took the stand Monday morning within the Manhattan district legal professional’s hush cash prosecution of Donald Trump. Even earlier than his testimony started, Cohen was probably the most seen character within the trial save Trump himself.
Within the early hours of his testimony, the previous Trump legal professional coated the Nationwide Enquirer’s alleged settlement to “catch and kill” tales which may harm the then-candidate, which like a lot of Cohen’s anticipated testimony had been detailed by different witnesses. He then mentioned the revelation of the “Entry Hollywood” recording that threw the marketing campaign right into a tailspin, together with Trump’s directions to spin his feedback about sexually assaulting girls as mere “locker room discuss.”
Cohen testified that it was in the course of the feverish efforts to handle that disaster that he realized that the adult-film actor Stormy Daniels was procuring her story of a liaison with Trump, one thing that he mentioned would have been “catastrophic” for the marketing campaign. He mentioned Trump ordered him to do what he needed to do to maintain the story from popping out earlier than the election.
Cohen got here throughout on the stand as responsive, matter-of-fact and unguarded in response to Assistant Dist. Atty. Susan Hoffinger’s low-key questioning.
From the opening arguments, each side have acknowledged Cohen’s central function within the fees in opposition to his former boss, for whom he was an uber-loyal fixer and assault canine. And each side have taken pains to emphasize Cohen’s credibility issues to the jury.
The protection actually has put almost all its chips on the possibilities that the jury will reject Cohen’s story, making his coming cross-examination the dramatic centerpiece of the trial. Extra surprisingly, the prosecution has additionally peppered its presentation with disparagement of Cohen, whom a number of witnesses portrayed as a self-interested blowhard.
Probably the most important occasion got here in the course of the testimony of Hope Hicks, who associated that Trump had advised her that Cohen paid off Daniels “out of the goodness of his coronary heart” somewhat than any course from him. The prosecution then requested a devastating follow-up: Did that appear in step with Cohen’s character? No, Hicks responded, she “didn’t know Michael to be an particularly charitable individual or selfless individual.”
Translation: Trump had reimbursed Cohen and lied to Hicks about it. It could have been this sincere and damaging evaluation that brought on Hicks to interrupt into tears.
The prosecution’s participation in pummeling Cohen was good technique. It seemingly lowered the jury’s expectations, lowering the big weight on the shoulders of the federal government’s star witness.
The jury needed to be ready for a witness whose document includes a number of felony convictions, reminiscent of the unlawful funds at subject on this very trial. The prosecution is betting that having already absorbed the dangerous information, the jurors can hearken to Cohen with comparatively open minds.
And right here’s the factor about Cohen, in my subjective opinion: It comes by that he’s telling the reality.
Sure, he’s a powerful character — a local New Yorker by and thru — and, sure, he has an infinite ax to grind with Trump, who has remained free (up to now) whereas Cohen went to jail for him. However there’s a distinction between a witness with credibility issues, nevertheless nice, and one who’s mendacity, and divining that distinction is what the jury system is for.
We’ve seen that already on this trial with the testimony of Daniels and David Pecker, the louche tabloid muckraker who described the “catch and kill” scheme. Each gave the protection loads of ammunition for cross-examination, however each got here throughout basically as telling the reality.
Cohen has been constant in his story since he turned traitor on Trump, and his earlier lies are simple to grasp within the context of his former sycophancy.
Most necessary, if the cornerstone of the protection is what is going to little question be a savage cross-examination of Cohen, the muse of the federal government’s case is its corroboration of his testimony. Beginning with the prosecutors’ smart move to guide with Pecker, their presentation has been designed to prospectively corroborate Cohen. The jurors will be capable of acknowledge almost each element from having heard it earlier than.
Cohen should carry a couple of key particulars alone, nevertheless, crucial of which concern two conferences. One was a January 2017 assembly amongst Trump, Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Group’s longtime chief monetary officer and supreme loyal fall man, during which Trump allegedly advised the 2 males to work out a plan to reimburse Cohen. The opposite is a February 2017 assembly between Cohen and Trump during which the then-president allegedly signed off on reimbursing his fixer with month-to-month funds camouflaged as a authorized retainer.
Robust corroborating proof of the association may be present in what might be crucial doc within the case: an bill with Weisselberg’s handwritten annotations explaining how Cohen’s $130,000 cost turned $420,000 in reimbursements, together with taxes and different concerns.
However so far as the jury is worried, Weisselberg, who might verify the association and Trump’s function in it, is nowhere to be seen. That’s as a result of he’s at Rikers Island serving a perjury sentence for mendacity to guard Trump. Actually, it emerged final week that the district legal professional’s workplace hadn’t even tried to achieve the previous govt, presumably assuming he would proceed to do no matter he might to assist Trump.
Weisselberg’s absence is a reminder that prosecutors need to play with the playing cards they’re dealt. Trump continues to train a robust affect over these in his orbit, and Weisselberg is only one instance of a witness the district legal professional can’t depend on for that motive.
All of which solely heightens Cohen’s significance for the prosecution. This week’s testimony will decide whether or not his phrase is robust sufficient to assist a measure of accountability for his former boss.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the Talking San Diego speaker sequence. @harrylitman