Stunning lack of effort: Trump defense tepid in attack on Cohen's damning testimony
TLDRIn a courtroom confrontation, former Trump attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, faced cross-examination by Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche. The defense's strategy appeared disjointed, painting Cohen in various unflattering lights, such as an unreliable narrator, a vengeful surrogate son, a desperate prisoner, and a greedy self-promoter. Despite attempts to discredit Cohen, the defense failed to present a coherent narrative to argue for Trump's innocence. Legal analysts were left stunned by the lack of effort in dismantling the legal argument regarding potential felonies. The defense seemed to focus more on attacking Cohen's credibility rather than addressing the heart of the criminal charges. The jury was left without a satisfying narrative resolution, casting doubt on the strength of the defense's case.
Takeaways
- 🚨 Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for Donald Trump, testified for a second day, facing cross-examination that started poorly for the defense.
- 🎭 Trump's attorney Todd Blanche began by questioning Cohen's credibility and attempting to expose bias, but was reprimanded by the judge for making it about himself rather than the defendant.
- 🤔 The defense painted several conflicting narratives of Cohen's motives for testifying against Trump, including him being an unreliable narrator, a vengeful surrogate son, a desperate prisoner, and a greedy self-promoter.
- 📉 The defense failed to provide a coherent narrative to explain why the jury should believe in Trump's innocence, leading to a perceived lack of effort in dismantling the legal argument for potential felonies.
- 🔍 The transcript reveals an attempt by the defense to highlight Cohen's inconsistencies and his tendency to act independently, potentially undermining his reliability as a witness.
- 💥 There was a notable lack of a 'knockout blow' against Cohen, with the defense's questioning appearing disjointed and failing to land a decisive point that would significantly damage his testimony.
- 📚 Discussion of Cohen's book and potential monetization of his anti-Trump stance, suggesting a possible motivation for his testimony beyond the pursuit of truth.
- 🤝 The relationship between Trump and Cohen is highlighted, emphasizing Cohen's past effectiveness and the reason for Trump's preference in using him, which changed once Trump entered the White House.
- 🧐 The defense's strategy is critiqued as being scattershot, with points made that may not have resonated clearly with the jury, particularly those not deeply versed in the case's details.
- 🕵️♂️ The importance of establishing Trump's criminal intent in campaign finance violations is noted, with Cohen being a key figure in proving this aspect of the case.
- 🏛 The prosecution's approach of bringing out Cohen last, after other corroborating witnesses, is seen as strategic, potentially to maximize the impact of his testimony despite questions about his reliability.
Q & A
Who is Michael Cohen and what is his relationship with Donald Trump?
-Michael Cohen is a former attorney and fixer for Donald Trump. He took the stand as a witness in a case where he was testifying against Donald Trump.
What was the general approach of Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, during the cross-examination of Michael Cohen?
-Todd Blanche attempted to paint several conflicting profiles of Michael Cohen to the jury, questioning his reliability and motives for testifying against Trump. However, the defense did not provide a coherent narrative to suggest Trump's innocence.
What was the judge's response to Todd Blanche's line of questioning?
-Judge Merschon instructed Blanche not to make the case about himself and to focus on whether Cohen had bias towards the defendant, rather than the attorneys.
What were some of the characterizations of Michael Cohen presented by the defense during the cross-examination?
-The defense portrayed Michael Cohen as an unreliable narrator, a jolted surrogate son seeking revenge, a disparate prisoner willing to say anything to get out of jail, and a greedy self-promoter trying to cash in on his situation.
How did the defense's cross-examination impact the perception of Michael Cohen's testimony?
-The defense's approach did not seem to dismantle Cohen's testimony effectively. It lacked a clear strategy and did not culminate in a satisfying narrative that would cast doubt on Cohen's credibility.
What was the reaction of the commentators to the defense's cross-examination strategy?
-The commentators were critical of the defense's strategy, noting that it was disjointed and lacked a coherent argument. They felt that the defense did not effectively address the key issues of the case.
Why was Michael Cohen considered a key witness in the case?
-Michael Cohen was considered a key witness because he had direct involvement with Donald Trump and was privy to information that could potentially implicate Trump in campaign finance violations and other felonies.
What was the significance of the discussion around Michael Cohen's book and his anti-Trump stance?
-The discussion aimed to highlight Cohen's potential bias and motive for profiting from his testimony against Trump, suggesting that he might be monetizing his anti-Trump position rather than providing an unbiased account.
null
-null
How did the defense attempt to discredit Michael Cohen's testimony?
-The defense tried to discredit Cohen by highlighting his past dishonesty, his personal motivations, and his willingness to lie under oath. They also pointed out his actions that seemed to defy the requests of the prosecution.
What was the role of the jury in assessing Michael Cohen's testimony?
-The jury was tasked with evaluating the credibility of Michael Cohen's testimony, considering the various portrayals of him presented by the defense, and determining whether his testimony created reasonable doubt about Donald Trump's guilt.
What was the general consensus among the commentators regarding the effectiveness of the defense's cross-examination?
-The commentators generally felt that the defense's cross-examination was not effective in providing a clear and coherent narrative to dispute Michael Cohen's testimony or to establish Donald Trump's innocence.
What was the significance of the discussion about the campaign finance violation and the role of Michael Cohen?
-The discussion was significant because it centered on whether Michael Cohen could convincingly establish Donald Trump's criminal intent in the campaign finance violation case. The defense did not adequately address this aspect during the cross-examination.
Outlines
🤔 Defense Attorney's Cross-Examination of Michael Cohen
In this segment, the defense attorney, Todd Blanche, begins the cross-examination of Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for Donald Trump. The examination starts on a contentious note with Cohen acknowledging that Blanche had disparaged him on TikTok. The judge intervenes, emphasizing that the focus should be on the defendant's bias, not the attorney's. Throughout the cross-examination, Blanche attempts to discredit Cohen by presenting him as an unreliable narrator, a vengeful surrogate son, a desperate prisoner, and a greedy self-promoter. However, the defense fails to provide a coherent narrative to suggest Trump's innocence, leaving the court and observers underwhelmed by the lack of effort to dismantle the legal argument regarding potential felonies.
👥 Juxtaposition of Cohen's Testimony with Previous Witnesses
The second paragraph discusses the dynamics of the courtroom as the defense continues its cross-examination of Michael Cohen. It contrasts Cohen's testimony with that of previous witnesses, such as David Pecker and Stormy Daniels, highlighting Cohen's perceived unreliability. The discussion also touches on the jury's perception and the strategic choice to have Cohen as the last prosecution witness. The speakers note that while the defense scored some points against Cohen, there was no definitive knockout blow. They also consider the implications of Cohen's post-trial actions, such as monetizing his story, and how that might influence the jury. The conversation suggests that the defense's strategy was to highlight Cohen's flaws and cast doubt on his credibility, rather than to directly address the legal charges at the heart of the case.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Cross-examination
💡Bias
💡Narrative
💡Conflicting profiles
💡Campaign-finance violation
💡Credibility
💡Juror
💡Prosecutors
💡Rogue operator
💡Monetizing
💡Disbarred
Highlights
Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, begins cross-examination of Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney and fixer.
Blanche's cross-examination does not start well, with Cohen admitting to making derogatory remarks about him on TikTok.
Judge Merchon calls lawyers for a sidebar, expressing concern over Blanche making the trial about himself.
The defense presents several conflicting profiles of Michael Cohen, questioning his motives for testifying against Trump.
Todd Blanche attempts to paint Cohen as an unreliable narrator, a jilted surrogate son, a desperate prisoner, and a greedy self-promoter.
The defense fails to provide a coherent narrative to argue for Donald Trump's innocence.
Chris Hayes expresses surprise at the lack of effort by the defense in dismantling the legal argument regarding potential felonies.
The defense's strategy appears disjointed, with no clear narrative or satisfying resolution to their questioning.
MSNBC legal correspondent Ari Melber and Katie Feng discuss the defense's approach and its potential impact on the jury.
The defense does not adequately address the issue of campaign finance violation, which is central to the case.
Cohen's credibility is questioned, with the defense suggesting he may be manipulating the timeline and Trump's intent.
The prosecution had built a case around Michael Cohen before bringing him out as the final witness.
The defense's cross-examination strategy is criticized for being disjointed and failing to land a knockout blow against Cohen's testimony.
The jury's reaction to the cross-examination is closely watched, with some jurors appearing riveted by the proceedings.
The defense's portrayal of Cohen as someone monetizing his anti-Trump stance may resonate with the jury.
The reason behind Trump's use of Michael Cohen is discussed, highlighting Cohen's effectiveness in certain roles for Trump.
The defense's approach to cross-examination is questioned, with some suggesting it lacked a clear, direct strategy.
The presence of Donald Trump as a larger-than-life figure in the case is noted, potentially influencing the jury's perception of the situation.
