Did Trump's lawyers do enough to damage Michael Cohen's testimony?

NEW YORK - Michael Cohen arrived for his cross-examination by Donald Trump's defense lawyers known as someone convicted of lying to Congress and cheating on his taxes.

The former Trump lawyer left the Manhattan criminal courthouse witness stand after several days of testimony having admitted that he stole tens of thousands of dollars, lied to a federal judge and invented meetings with a prosecutor. Twice, Cohen was surprised with evidence that appeared to contradict his previous statements under oath at the trial.

For Trump's defense team, the ultimate hope was to tarnish Cohen's earlier testimony under questioning by prosecutors, during which he helped connect the former president to charges related to hush money payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

Defense lawyers wanted to leave doubt in at least one juror's mind about any alleged criminal behavior by Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of alleged falsification of business records. He is the first former president on trial for criminal charges and the presumptive Republican nominee in the November election.

Legal experts say Trump lawyer Todd Blanche succeeded in painting Cohen as an incorrigible liar with an ax to grind against Trump. But others say he was not especially effective, noting that he raised issues that may have been counterproductive by reinforcing for the jury that Trump was involved with falsifying records or knew about a plan to disguise reimbursements as a legal retainer.

The defense had to contend with testimony from several witnesses who corroborated aspects of Cohen's story.

Cohen, who began testifying last week and finished Monday, came into court with a straightforward tale - he lied when he was working for Trump, who scrambled his "moral compass," and is now trying to serve "the country" by coming clean. Among his dirty deeds, he said, was paying Daniels on Trump's behalf, then getting reimbursed by Trump through fake legal fees.

That account is supported by witnesses who understood Cohen to be representing Trump in the hush money deal, records related to the deal and the reimbursements, and checks signed by Trump to Cohen. But Cohen was the only witness who said Trump personally participated in the scheme and did so to influence the election. During a grilling that stretched nine hours over three days, Blanche tried to undermine that testimony.

On Cohen's second day on the witness stand, Blanche cast doubt on his recollection of discussing the Daniels payout with Trump in a late October 2016 conversation. He showed text messages to suggest that Cohen was actually speaking with Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, about a 14-year-old prank caller.

It was the most dramatic moment of the questioning - and the only time Blanche appeared irate. The defense lawyer grabbed the microphone on his podium and raised his voice as he declared, "That was a lie." He pressed Cohen, "You can admit it."

Cohen appeared caught off guard but recovered with a simple explanation: He could have discussed both matters during the same conversation.

Blanche also showed as evidence an email that contradicted Cohen's earlier testimony that the reimbursement plan, meant to be secret, was not formalized in writing. In fact, the chief financial officer of Trump's business, Allen Weisselberg, emailed Cohen in January 2017 and asked him to "prepare the agreement we discussed so we can pay you monthly." (He also chided Cohen for leaving the Trump Organization without "a bro hug.")

But that email could also be viewed by the jury as evidence that Trump or his top finance deputy was in on the plan to disguise the Daniels repayment as a legal retainer. Likewise, by spotlighting that Cohen stole $60,000 from Trump by padding his reimbursement request, Blanche may have inadvertently bolstered the idea that the funds were reimbursements rather than legal fees. (Trump admitted years ago that he reimbursed Cohen for the Daniels money, but in opening statements, Blanche said the money "was not a payback.")

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger reminded jurors that Cohen was not on trial. Instead, he was a crucial witness against Trump.

Mark Zauderer, a New York trial and appeals attorney, said the Manhattan district attorney's case is "a jigsaw puzzle with clear ties to Donald Trump" and it appeared to be generally untarnished by attempts by the defense to discredit Cohen.

Blanche's confrontation about the October 2016 phone call - hailed by some as a major setback to the district attorney - did not appear to destroy Cohen's credibility, according to Zauderer, "because its perfectly plausible that his explanation would be accepted by the jury."

"Nobody can be sure what the jury will decide, but it's to me a distortion to argue that the testimony of Cohen was so undercut that a jury would find reasonable doubt given the storm of corroborating evidence," Zauderer said

Blanche succeeded, other experts said, in raising necessary points to argue that Cohen is generally dishonest. That point, they said, can be emphasized during closing arguments, scheduled for Tuesday.

"I don't think [Blanche] can accomplish much more than getting up and closing and saying you can't believe a word Michael Cohen says," said Jeffrey Cohen, a Boston College Law school professor who is unrelated to the witness.

Jeffrey Lichtman, who helped acquit mobster John Gotti Jr., said it would be "almost impossible" to get Cohen to recant his telling of private conversations with Trump.

"You're not going to get him to say, all of a sudden, 'Oh, my G od, you got me,'" Lichtman said.

Peter Frankel, a defense attorney based in New York, said that while "a lot of the questions … were confusing and had to be rephrased," Blanche "was obviously very well prepared, and he put in the work to cover every single aspect of Michael Cohen's history."

Much of Cohen's narrative of his dishonest and criminal ways has been known for years, but Blanche laid out the highlights for jurors - including that Cohen told Congress he would never seek a pardon from Trump when he already had through his attorney.

Trump's defense dug up additional examples, including that Cohen claimed on his podcast last year to have spent "countless hours" with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is prosecuting the case. He admitted on the stand that he never met Bragg (although he did meet with lawyers from Bragg's office).

Pulling up a 2020 episode of a podcast Cohen hosts, Blanche showed a different version of the calm, rueful man jurors saw in court. Jurors heard evidence of his past outbursts, in which Cohen sounded at times unhinged and furious as he fantasized about seeing Trump convicted.

Blanche pressed Cohen on why he pleaded guilty to tax fraud but then went on to call the charges "bogus" and both the judge and prosecutors corrupt. Cohen said he was willing to lie and falsely claim to accept responsibility, because otherwise his wife might have been charged.

"You lied to a federal judge because the stakes affected you personally, correct?" Blanche asked.

"Yes," Cohen replied.

Later, Blanche asked Cohen, "Does the outcome of this trial affect you personally?"

Again, Cohen answered, "Yes."

It was a setup that allowed Blanche to argue in summations that Cohen had motive to lie under oath to help convict Trump and was capable of lying again.

(COMMENT, BELOW)