CNN legal analyst Elie Honig believes that Michael Cohen's admission to stealing from Donald Trump during cross-examination is more serious than the alleged crime Trump is facing. Honig argues that larceny is a more severe offense than falsifying business records, and that the prosecution's minimization of Cohen's admission raises questions about their credibility.
During the trial of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has expressed his belief that Michael Cohen's admission to stealing from Trump is more serious than the alleged crime Trump is facing.
Cohen, Trump's former fixer, admitted under cross-examination that he stole $60,000 from the Trump Organization. Honig argues that this admission is more serious than the falsifying business records charges against Trump because larceny is a more significant offense.
"The fact that he was never charged with larceny is important because stealing $60,000 through fraud, which would be larceny in New York State, is more serious of a crime than falsifying business records," Honig said.
Honig and other legal experts have questioned the prosecution's handling of Cohen's admission, which they believe was minimized during the initial questioning.
"The fact that it was minimized in that way by the prosecution, I think it presents a very good opportunity and closing for — they knew about this. They minimized it, the prosecutor misled this jury," said CNN political commentator Tim Parlatore.
Others have also criticized Cohen's credibility, pointing to his lack of impulse control and outspokenness about the case on social media.
"His lack of impulse control in all of this is remarkable," said New York Times reporter Susanne Craig. "He went out on Twitter and said I'm not going to say anything else … then was out on a TikTok live video with a shirt of Donald Trump behind bars."
In addition to Cohen's admission, the credibility of other key witnesses, such as adult film star Stormy Daniels, has been questioned. Honig described Daniels' responses under cross-examination as "disastrous," particularly her admission that she hates Trump.
"That's a big deal," said Honig. "When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that's a big damn deal!"
Legal experts have also raised concerns about the prosecution's opening arguments and the overall case against Trump. Boston University law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman argues that the prosecution's election interference theory is weak and likely overreaching.
"As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement," Shugerman wrote.
He also warns that Trump could prevail in an appellate court case if he is convicted based on what he considers poor opening statements by the prosecution.
"This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution," Shugerman concluded. "But if [that] opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all."
Former chief counsel to Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein has also criticized the case, comparing it to the lack of legal action against the Biden family.
"This is an outrageous case. It's an embarrassment to the legal system that this case is being brought," Epstein said.
He added, "Suppressing bad stories is not election interference. Everyone does it. Nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal. If suppressing bad news were election interference, then what would one say about the Biden campaign in 2020 that actively used all of its resources to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop case? I mean, that had much more serious implications in terms of the election than the alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2016."
As the trial continues, legal experts and pundits will continue to scrutinize the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
