It’s understandable if the jury in Donald Trump’s first criminal trial now views his former fixer, Michael Cohen, as a vengeful and profane social media troll eager to see his former boss imprisoned. However, the jury’s role is not to like Cohen but to believe his testimony. Despite a relentless cross-examination by defense attorney Todd Blanche, Cohen managed to maintain his composure, which is crucial for the prosecution.
Cohen has testified that Trump directed payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair, with the intent of influencing the 2016 election. Trump denies the affair and has pleaded not guilty. Blanche’s cross-examination aimed to discredit Cohen and create reasonable doubt among the jurors.
Blanche underscored Cohen’s history of insulting Trump and his tendency to lie, bringing up social media posts and Cohen’s profitable business ventures criticizing Trump. Blanche highlighted Cohen’s derogatory comments about Trump, such as calling him a “boorish cartoon misogynist” and a “Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain,” to portray him as biased and obsessed.
Former US attorney Michael Moore observed that the defense had some success in undermining Cohen’s credibility, suggesting the jury might see Cohen as a grifter. However, Blanche’s focus was more on discrediting Cohen’s character than addressing the core issue: whether Trump falsified business records to mislead voters in 2016.
Blanche’s aggressive courtroom tactics, seemingly performed for Trump’s benefit, earned a reprimand from Judge Juan Merchan. The primary question is whether Blanche's cross-examination significantly harmed Cohen’s testimony and the prosecution's case. With the prosecution not planning to call additional witnesses, the focus shifts to the defense’s next move. Will they call their own witnesses, or argue that the prosecution failed to prove its case?
Speculation surrounds whether Trump will testify. Despite his confidence in his advocacy, his unpredictable temperament and issues with truthfulness could be detrimental.
A significant legal challenge is whether the prosecution has proven their legal theory. Retired Judge Shira Scheindlin believes the misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records is clear, but the felony requires proving Trump’s intent to violate election law. Cohen’s testimony supports this theory.
As the prosecution wraps up, the jury’s verdict looms. This tension was underscored by House Speaker Mike Johnson’s courthouse visit, attempting to delegitimize the trial and support Trump’s claim of victimization.
Ultimately, the jury’s interpretation remains uncertain until they deliver their verdict. While some experts questioned Blanche’s tactics, others defended his strategy. The prosecution anticipated Blanche’s attack, working to solidify their narrative about the payments to Daniels.
Cohen described his breaking point with Trump, influenced by his family urging him to stop lying for the former president. This personal testimony could resonate with the jury, reinforcing the prosecution’s case.