Donald Trump’s lawyer on Thursday attacked the core charge against the former president as he sought to undercut Michael Cohen, the former attorney whose $130,000 hush-money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels is at the heart of the criminal trial in New York.
The defense, led by the Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, had Cohen admit that technically Daniels entered into a legal contract to sell the rights of her story about a sexual encounter with Trump, apparently in an attempt to justify labelling the repayments as legal expenses.
During the hours-long cross-examination, the defense forced Cohen to concede that he had previously lied to protect Trump because it affected the stakes for him personally, and that he lied to the federal judge when he was prosecuted for tax evasion and false statements.
As Cohen returned to the stand for the third day, Blanche suggested Cohen’s latest objective was to see Trump go to jail, seeding the possibility that he might have also lied about the extent of Trump’s involvement in the hush-money scheme with Daniels.
Blanche also directly accused Cohen of lying in his trial testimony. Cohen said earlier in the week that when he called Trump’s then bodyguard Keith Schiller on 24 October 2016, it was to apprise Trump that he was moving forward with paying hush-money to Daniels.
But relying on texts Cohen sent to Schiller complaining about prank calls from a 14-year-old, Blanche raised his voice to tell Cohen he must have phoned Schiller primarily about the prank calls and that he could not have had enough time in a one-minute 30-second call to tell Trump about the Daniels deal.
“You can admit,” Blanche said, that you lied. “No sir, I can’t,” Cohen responded, sticking to his account.
Trump was joined in court on Thursday by his son Eric Trump and the US representatives Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz. The trio appeared to be engaged in a dynamic conversation, at times smiling, laughing and whispering into each other’s ears shortly before Cohen took the stand.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of felony falsification of business records. Prosecutors must prove Trump authorized what he knew to be hush-money repayments to be falsely characterized as “legal expenses” in the Trump Organization’s records, with an intent to commit a second, election crime.
The criminal case against Trump – the first against a US president – stems from his attempts to suppress negative stories about alleged sexual encounters he had with Daniels and others for fear that they could negatively affect his campaign just weeks before the 2016 election.
Cohen has been a dramatic witness for the prosecution as he recounted how he used a home equity loan to raise $130,000, which he then wired to Daniels’s lawyer through a shell company he established. Cohen did so in the belief that Trump would reimburse him, he testified.
In January 2017, Cohen previously recounted, he discussed with Trump and the former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg about being repaid for the $130,000, an overdue bonus, and other expenses he incurred doing work that benefited the Trump 2016 campaign.
Cohen produced 11 invoices seeking payment pursuant to a legal “retainer” that did not exist according to Cohen, that led to 11 checks being cut to Cohen and the Trump Organization recording 12 entries for “legal expense” on its general ledger – totaling 34 instances of alleged falsifications.
Under New York law, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump either made or caused a false entry to be made in the business records of an enterprise. Cohen’s testimony provided the first direct evidence that Trump directed the nature of the reimbursement to be obscured.
But Blanche relentlessly attacked Cohen’s credibility and motivations in recounting that story.
after newsletter promotion
Blanche played clips from Cohen’s podcast Mea Culpa, including when Cohen said “thinking about Trump in Otisville prison makes me giddy with joy”. He also got Cohen to concede that he believed he played a large role in the indictment being brought against Trump – and bragged about it.
The defense later dug into Cohen’s previous lies under oath and how he seemingly lied about details big and small. When Cohen testified to Congress in 2017 about a Trump real estate deal in Moscow, Blanche elicited, Cohen lied about how many times he spoke to Trump about the deal.
And although Cohen told William Pauley, a US district court judge, in 2018 that he had not been induced to plead guilty to federal tax evasion and false statements charges, Blanche elicited, Cohen later said he felt he was cornered into pleading guilty so that his wife wouldn’t also be charged.
“The reason you lied to a federal judge was because stakes affected you personally?” Blanche asked. “Yes,” Cohen replied, affirming that he told lies not just to protect Trump, as he has previously claimed, but for his personal benefit, when it suited him.
In an apparent effort to undercut Cohen’s testimony on direct examination that Trump was responsible and involved in the effort to cover up the hush money to Daniels, Blanche elicited from Cohen that he had a track record of trying to shift blame for his own actions on to other people.
“You’ve blamed … Your bank? Your accountant? You blamed federal prosecutors? The judge? President Trump?” Blanche asked. “Yes, sir,” replied Cohen to each of the questions.
The cross-examination of Cohen is expected to conclude on Monday morning. The redirect-examination is unlikely to take longer than an hour, prosecutors told the judge. After Cohen is done, Trump’s lawyers may call Bradley Smith, an expert in federal elections law.
Smith’s potential testimony is not likely to take particularly long, in large part because the judge imposed limits on expert testimony in a pre-trial ruling. Smith would only be able to testify about general definitions about federal campaign contributions.
Whether Trump testifies in his own defense remains uncertain, even if Trump has suggested he wants to take the stand. Should Trump not testify, closing arguments in the case could come on Tuesday. But the judge still has to issue jury instructions, which means the jury might only start deliberating on Thursday.
Source: US Politics - theguardian.com
