Forget the noise; the only four points of Michael Cohen’s testimony that are essential to the prosecution are as follows:
- The hush money payment was made at the direction of Trump. Cohen did not do it for his own purposes;
- The payment was made to assist the campaign, not to protect Trump’s family;
- The payments to Cohen were a reimbursement, not compensation for legal services; and
- Trump personally approved the decision to falsely identify the payments to Cohen as compensation for legal services.
Given Cohen’s limited credibility as a witness, how are these statements corroborated? #1 is consistent with common sense; would Cohen really spend that much of his own money with no expectation of reimbursement? #2 is supported by plenty of testimony from a variety of sources that the campaign was in a panic after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. #3 is corroborated by notes made by the Trump Organization’s accountant. #4 is the shakiest; it is supported only by testimony and written excerpts proving that Trump was a micromanager who took a personal interest in every penny he spent.
If I were a defense lawyer, I would focus on #4 in my cross-examination of Cohen and in my closing argument. The prosecution needs to be prepared for that.