Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett discusses Michael Cohen's recent testimony as a witness in the criminal trial against former President Donald Trump, highlighting Cohen's compulsive lying and its potential impact on the case.
Michael Cohen, who served as Donald Trump's personal attorney before falling out with him, recently testified as a key witness in the criminal trial against the former President. However, Cohen's credibility has been extensively damaged during the trial, with his testimony riddled with lies and inconsistencies.
Under cross-examination, Cohen admitted to lying numerous times, including to Congress, banks, a special counsel, the media, the IRS, and judges in courts of law. His fabrications have covered a wide range of topics, from financial matters to political involvement.
The volume and nature of Cohen's lies have prompted legal experts to question his trustworthiness as a witness. As psychiatrist would likely conclude, Cohen's compulsion to lie may stem from psychological issues, including narcissism and a desire for self-aggrandizement.
Cohen's motives for lying are believed to include a combination of revenge and financial gain. After being fired by Trump and facing legal troubles, Cohen has turned against his former boss, making public statements and writing a book that both disparage Trump and advance Cohen's financial interests.
Despite Cohen's extensive lies, prosecutors in the Trump trial have chosen to rely heavily on his testimony. This decision has been criticized by defense attorneys and legal observers, who argue that Cohen's credibility is so damaged that his evidence should be disregarded.
Under New York law, juries are instructed that they may disregard the testimony of a witness who has been found to have intentionally testified falsely. In Cohen's case, the defense has presented a strong argument that he has lied under oath, providing ample grounds for jurors to discount his evidence.
Prosecutors have failed to provide credible evidence that Trump was aware of or involved in any alleged financial irregularities related to Cohen's Stormy Daniels payments. Cohen has admitted that he handled the negotiations and payments himself, without Trump's knowledge or approval.
The indictment against Trump alleges that business records were falsified in connection with the Daniels payments. However, these records were booked as "legal expenses" because that is precisely what they were, a negotiated non-disclosure contract (NDA). Moreover, there is no evidence that Trump knew how Cohen's fees were recorded.
Even if jurors believe some of Cohen's testimony, there is insufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crimes charged under the indictment. Trump used his personal funds, not campaign funds, to compensate Cohen, and the payments did not qualify as illegal contributions.
Prosecutors have overreached by invoking an inapplicable (and expired) federal campaign law to criminally charge Trump. This move has been seen as an attempt to bypass the lack of evidence and to create a political advantage against a potential opponent in the upcoming presidential election.
Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, has been criticized for allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony from Cohen. By introducing sordid details that have little or nothing to do with the charges, the prosecution has engaged in character assassination rather than seeking justice.
The defense is considering calling Robert Costello, Cohen's former lawyer, to testify. Costello has acknowledged that Cohen lied about Trump's involvement in the Daniels payments and that prosecutors concealed exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.
In conclusion, Michael Cohen's testimony in the Trump criminal trial has been filled with lies and fabrications, severely undermining his credibility as a witness. The defense has presented a compelling case for disregarding his evidence, and the prosecution's case appears weakened by the lack of credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Trump. It remains to be seen whether the jury will be able to overcome Cohen's perjury and render a fair verdict based solely on the admissible evidence presented in court.
