Michael Cohen ready for his closeup

Andrew Weissman (at the New York Times), and Joyce Vance (in her Substack article), previewed what they're expecting today in Trump's Manhattan case.

Before the trial started, some observers thought Mr. Cohen would be an indispensable star witness. They said that without Mr. Cohen, the district attorney could not establish the elements of the charged criminal offenses. But having seen the proof laid out meticulously and methodically by the prosecution these past three weeks, I find myself wondering: Do prosecutors even need Michael Cohen as a witness? Does the jury need to hear from him?

[...]

Mr. Cohen can provide a detailed insider account of the charged scheme and Mr. Trump’s alleged role in it. And because the trial has already established that there is simply no alternative narrative that is consistent with all the trial proof, Mr. Cohen is far less important to its outcome than initially thought.

  Weissman

Whether they need him or not, I wish we had video, because Cohen and Trump in the same room while Cohen directs venom at him and Trump can't (or can he?) return fire will be priceless. Trump will, of course, have lots to say on breaks.

To be sure, the case would not exist but for Mr. Cohen. It is he who first revealed to prosecutors in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s office (I was one of the special counsel prosecutors) and in New York the hush-money scheme to buy Stormy Daniels’s silence in the aftermath of the “Access Hollywood” tape’s disclosure.

[...]

It is a sign of the unusual political dimension of this trial that Ms. Daniels, and not the far more legally damaging witnesses Mr. Pecker and Ms. Hicks, was subject to the far more intense cross-examination.

[...]

To call Mr. Cohen as a witness carries with it not only the reward of adding further critical evidence to the prosecution’s case, but also the risk of undermining the case with issues related to Mr. Cohen’s personal baggage.

[...]

A key remaining issue — and one that Mr. Cohen can address — is whether Mr. Trump was aware of the alleged cover-up scheme involving reimbursement checks to Mr. Cohen disguised as legal payments.

[...]

Witness after witness — as well as Mr. Trump’s own words read to the jury — attest to his being both a micromanager and a penny-pincher. And Mr. Trump signed check after check reimbursing Mr. Cohen for what he paid Ms. Daniels plus much more.

[...]

[H]andwritten notes from Allen Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization chief financial officer [...] reveal that he must have been aware of the hush-money scheme and its alleged cover-up. [...] The idea that Mr. Weisselberg, a Trump Organization veteran who has apparently been willing to serve time in jail rather than turn against Mr. Trump and remained on the Trump payroll even after his guilty pleas, would have approved these payments on his own is far-fetched. Trial evidence establishes that he could not approve expenses over $10,000, and here he would be approving not just the payment of $130,000 to Mr. Cohen, but doubling it to make him whole.

[...]

Mr. Bragg and his prosecutors believe they must call Mr. Cohen to testify. Still, calling Mr. Cohen as a witness does carry significant risk for Mr. Bragg. He brings baggage: He recently claimed under oath in a New York civil fraud trial against Mr. Trump (where the court found him credible and ruled against Mr. Trump) that he lied to a federal judge when he pleaded guilty to one of several crimes. By way of explanation, he seemed to contend he was pressured to plead guilty by the federal prosecutors.

My recollection is Cohen said they threatened to drag his wife into the mess.

Even accepting Mr. Cohen’s story, it means he lied to a federal judge after taking an oath to tell the truth — the same oath he will take at the criminal trial of Mr. Trump. And his story would support an anticipated defense claim that the federal prosecutors were so intent on making a case against Mr. Trump that they were willing to trample on Mr. Cohen’s rights — and that ugly federal muck will splatter on the state prosecutors.

The other option is that Mr. Cohen is lying about not being guilty of the charge — which may be a very distinct possibility given the proof against him. If that is the case, it would mean he lied in the recent state court fraud case. As a federal judge in New York recently concluded in denying Mr. Cohen’s motion for early termination of his criminal sentence, he lied in one forum or the other.

Cross-examination by defense lawyers should be a real rodeo.

Jurors often want to hear someone recount what they already know occurred, but that has not been said directly.

[...]

I have repeatedly observed an interesting phenomenon in cases in which the prosecution has a mountain of independent evidence of guilt, but still calls a flawed insider to provide unique detailed and direct evidence to the jury of the defendant’s guilt.

History will tell us that the country should never have elected him and that it’s a terrible mistake to even consider doing it again. This is not a joyful moment for our country.

[...]

We’re also about to reach the complicated part of the case, where it’s not just about the personal history witnesses like Stormy Daniels are sharing on the witness stand. Soon, it will be about each of the 34 counts charged by the prosecution. In a business records case like this, it can be hard to keep everything straight. So, the District Attorney’s office put together a chart for the jurors to use. The 34 false records Trump is charged with are divided into invoices, vouchers (entries recording payments into the books), and checks and set forth in chronological order.

[...]

This chart, along with Exhibit 35, the invoice with Allen Weisselberg’s handwritten notes on it that documents the “grossed up” payment to Cohen to account for his taxes and other questionable expenses, and Exhibit 36, Controller Jeffrey McConney’s handwritten notes of Weisselberg’s directo to him about handling the payments, will be important for us to keep in mind as the government winds down its case. They form the core allegations of fraudulent records combined with the prosecution’s proof that Trump was a part of the scheme. That part of the case will be based largely on amalgamated circumstantial evidence from a number of witnesses that establishes no one from Weisselberg on down would have spent $420,000 of Trump’s money without his explicit approval.

  Vance

If you want to see the documents she's talking about, copies of them are included in her article.

Prosecutors still have to establish, in order to convert the misdemeanor fraudulent business records crime into a felony, that the records were created to conceal or aid in the commission of another crime. We haven’t heard a lot about that.

[...]

It’s likely that we’ll hear more about Trump’s culpability for campaign finance violations before the case ends, either in the form of exhibits or perhaps an expert witness or both, to establish that what Cohen did for the campaign was also an illegal contribution, in violation of federal and/or New York state law.

Cohen pled guilty to those charges in his federal case.

[...]

The defense will try to have a field day on cross-examination with the man who once said he’d take a bullet for Trump. The prosecution, which has meticulously pre-corroborated Cohen’s testimony knowing this was coming, will tell the jury they don’t have to approve of Michael Cohen to believe his testimony, which is substantiated by documents and other witnesses.

Trump is already preparing his base for a conviction. Just like he prepared them for a loss at the polls, he’s arguing that if he's convicted, it will be the result of corruption in the process—fraud.

[...]

[I]t’s important to understand that no matter what the verdict is in Manhattan, Trump still won’t be held accountable for his abuses as president. This is a case about very discreet charges: 34 counts of creating false business records in the state of New York. The prosecution has to prove every element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury for each count in order for them to convict. [...] [A]nd it’s frustrating watching the delay in other prosecutions against Trump. It is where we are.

[...]

The prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving every element of the charged crimes to the jury’s satisfaction. Some of the elements in this case, including Trump’s knowledge of the criminal scheme and the intent to commit/conceal other crimes, are complex issues of circumstantial proof. We leave those decisions in the hands of the jury, as we must if we are committed to the rule of law.

[...]

Trump, as we’ve discussed recently, wants to take us to a place where the criminal justice system is a tool to be wielded by a president against his enemies. So, in the end, we may agree with the jury's verdict or not, but we must abide by it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 07:57 am:  Add Norm Eisen...

Michael Cohen, the erstwhile lawyer and fixer of former President Donald Trump, was one of the first witnesses I interviewed as part of the first Trump impeachment.

[...]

I expected someone very different from the person I met, who was candid, remorseful and funny, if profane and possessed of a hatred of Trump. Cohen has never wavered since in the key details he provided me about the election scheme and its cover-up that will also be at the center of his testimony in Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial starting Monday. As we approach his keenly anticipated appearance, I think he, like Daniels did last week, will exceed expectations in how he presents to the jury.

[...]

Cohen will undoubtedly be the subject of a vigorous cross-examination that will likely include the many lies he now admits having told when he was associated with Trump, as well as Cohen’s guilty plea for perjury. But the prosecution’s effective strategy [methodically bolster(ing) Cohen’s upcoming testimony with a series of credible witnesses and corroborating documents] has significantly shortened the leap of faith the jury will have to take to believe him.

[...]

Cohen will likely testify about a [...] meeting at Trump’s office that took place between October 10 and October 28, 2016, with former Trump Organization finance chief Allen Weisselberg in attendance, where Trump agreed to pay Daniels the $130,000. According to Cohen, Trump said “it is not a lot of money, and we should just do it, so go ahead and do it.” Trump then allegedly directed Cohen and Weisselberg to “figure this all out.” The two allegedly met again in early January in Trump Tower to do that, and then confirmed it with Trump.

[...]

[B]ecause Cohen is so strongly corroborated, believing him will not require a leap of faith for the jury — more like a short hop. When that is combined with the brutally unfiltered, heart-on-his-sleeve person I first met back in 2019, you get a witness who may surprise us all, and certainly the jury, by exceeding expectations.

  CNN

Harry Litman, another former federal prosecutor, has also become a fan/friend of Michael Cohen and has been a guest multiple times on Cohen's podcast "Mea Culpa".

Sounds right to me.