Fox News host Jesse Watters delivers a scathing analysis of Michael Cohen's cross-examination in the New York Attorney General's lawsuit against former President Trump. Watters argues that Cohen's testimony was riddled with lies and contradictions, revealing a deep-seated desire for revenge against Trump.
In a riveting cross-examination, Michael Cohen, former attorney to President Donald Trump, faced a barrage of questions that exposed his inconsistencies, motives, and desperation. Amidst the legal proceedings, Fox News host Jesse Watters provided a blistering commentary on Cohen's testimony, peeling back the layers of deception and painting a disturbing picture of a man consumed by vengeance.
"Imagine being a juror listening," Watters said, his words dripping with sarcasm. "You've spent a whole month away from your family and work, only to find out that the star witness is a fanatic with a burning desire for revenge against the defendant."
Cohen's credibility crumbled under intense scrutiny. When asked if he had ever sought a pardon from Trump, he initially denied the allegation. However, defense attorneys swiftly produced a deposition in which Cohen had explicitly requested a pardon. The courtroom erupted in disbelief as Cohen's lies were exposed.
The defense portrayed Cohen as a jilted lawyer, passed over for the coveted role of White House chief of staff and unable to secure inaugural tickets. This sense of rejection, Watters argued, fueled Cohen's bitterness and vendetta against Trump.
Under oath, Cohen admitted to contemplating suicide, a further indication of his emotional distress. This admission further raised questions about his reliability as a witness, casting doubt on the accuracy of his testimony against Trump.
"If you're a juror and you hear the star witness say that, it's not good," Watters concluded.
Cohen's former lawyer corroborated this assessment, stating that Cohen had previously sworn that he possessed no incriminating information on Trump. Watters inferred that if Cohen had any damaging evidence against the former president, he would have eagerly shared it with federal authorities to avoid imprisonment.
Watters' analysis highlights the fundamental flaws in Cohen's testimony, raising serious questions about his credibility and motivations. The inconsistencies, lies, and personal vendetta exposed during his cross-examination cast a long shadow over the New York Attorney General's lawsuit against Trump.
