Michael Cohen’s testimony was clear and persuasive. It was completely consistent with the undisputed facts. From a psychological perspective, his account of his behavior and his motivations made sense. So what does the defense do now?
The Trump team has two options. The first one–typically used when the defendant is guilty–is to poke as many holes in the testimony as possible, keep the defendant off the stand, and argue that the evidence does not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The second is to create a compelling counternarrative through testimony from Trump that vindicates the man on golf cart. This undoubtedly would be Trump’s preferred alternative.
But how can the facts be spun to vindicate Trump? As far as I can see, he either has to persuade the jury (and the voting public) that he is telling the truth, and that everything the prosecution put on (including the documents and the testimony from the disinterested witnesses) is a lie, or he has to admit the hush money payment, but put all of the blame for it on two rogue employees. In light of the corroborating documents and testimony, the obvious motives of the parties, and Trump’s reputation as a micromanager, does that story really make sense?
I would select the first option, but it will only be used if the Trump defense team has control over the client. Don’t bet the ranch on that.