All Hell Breaks Loose In Court After Cohen Drops Massive Admission

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney of Donald Trump, offered testimony on Monday that might undermine the narrative of the prosecution in the Manhattan District Attorney’s well-known case against the former president. Cohen’s admission in court cast doubt on the case’s central assertions by implying that Trump was not unduly concerned about the Stormy Daniels tale.

Once a close confidant and Trump’s attorney, Cohen has played a pivotal role in the legal drama surrounding purported payments of hush money to quiet Daniels, the porn star who claimed to have seen Trump in 2006. The prosecution has characterized Trump’s payments thus far as a last-ditch effort to keep embarrassing material from sinking his 2016 presidential campaign. But Cohen’s latest evidence presents a different picture, suggesting that Trump saw the accusations as unimportant to the conclusion of his campaign.

Cohen implied that Trump didn’t give a damn about the embarrassing news, implying that he was sure the article wouldn’t matter if he won the election. This might have a significant effect on the prosecution’s case, which depends on demonstrating that Trump deliberately participated in a cover-up to sway the outcome of the election.

Cohen claims that the former president was more worried about the political fallout than the affair’s actual disclosure. According to his testimony, Trump declared, “If I win, it won’t have any relevance.” I don’t really care if I lose.

Daniels asserted in 2016 that she had an affair with Trump in 2006 and that, just before the election, Trump’s then-attorney paid her $130,000 in hush money to prevent the affair from becoming public. A central narrative in the hush money payment controversy has been that Trump was extremely worried about the possible consequences of the Daniels claim. Trump made the agreement with Cohen ostensibly to avoid any controversy that might harm his chances of winning the presidency.

The theory that the payment was made out of concern about potential political harm in the 2016 election is called into question by Cohen’s assertion that Trump was indifferent. The claim that the hush money was a frantic attempt to shield Trump’s candidacy is called into question if he genuinely didn’t care about the news.

The timing of Cohen’s payments, which came after the election and refuted the accusation that they were paid with the intention of influencing the outcome, further muddies the prosecution’s case. Originally reported by Cohen as legal fees, these payments now seem more like a strategy to handle the aftermath of the election than a calculated plot to influence voters.

As the case develops, Cohen’s credibility will probably be a key point of emphasis. Among other accusations in his past, he was found guilty of lying to Congress; this is something that Trump’s legal team will probably bring up to cast doubt on his credibility as a witness. Cohen’s testimony, according to Trump’s attorneys, is contradictory and driven by personal grudges against the president.

The case against Trump may be significantly weakened if the jury believes that these payments had no bearing on the outcome of the election. Legal experts contend that in order to establish electoral influence, there must be a direct connection between the purpose of the payments and the result of the election—a connection that Cohen’s testimony now casts doubt on. The defense is anticipated to keep pointing out contradictions and raising doubts about motivations, while the prosecution will try to show a pattern of conduct consistent with the allegations they have.

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend