It is undoubtedly true that, to convict Trump, the jury must believe Michael Cohen’s uncorroborated testimony that Trump knew the details of how Cohen was going to be paid.
In a column for National Review on Wednesday, I observe that the ongoing testimony of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer and self-described «fixer,» is a two-edged sword for the former president’s defense to the charges brought by Manhattan’s elected Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg.
Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, who is conducting the cross-examination, needs to do enough damage to Cohen’s credibility – between Cohen’s perjury and frauds, some ridiculous elements of his story (like why he covertly recorded Trump), and his obsessive bias against Trump – that the defense can argue to the jury that it would be irresponsible to convict someone based on Cohen’s testimony.
On the other hand, Blanche has to bear in mind that Cohen is in this central role because he was Trump’s guy. The things that made Cohen an unsavory character are the things that Trump found useful about him. And even when Trump was president and Cohen was under investigation for tax and bank fraud by the Trump Justice Department, Trump was saying nice things about Cohen right up until he cooperated with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Hence, the more Blanche hammers Cohen, the more the jury may wonder why Trump kept him around for a dozen years.
It is undoubtedly true that, to convict Trump, the jury must believe Cohen’s uncorroborated testimony that Trump knew – from the Trump Organization’s then-CFO, Allen Weisselberg – the details of how Cohen was going to be paid.
Prosecutors have projected the illusion that they’ve offered tons of evidence to corroborate Cohen. But they have only corroborated elements of the story that are not incriminating and not in (much) dispute. On the disputed issue of Trump’s state of mind, there is no support for the key Weisselberg story.
