Since the opening of Donald Trump's trial in New York, when the former president's lawyer told the jury that the prosecution's star witness “cannot be trusted,” the defense has telegraphed its main strategy: eviscerating Michael Cohen.
As Trump's fixer and attack dog at the time of the alleged crimes, Cohen was more central to the events described in the indictment than anyone else in the defendant's orbit. He even advanced his personal funds to appease Stormy Daniels, who was pursuing a story about a 2006 sexual relationship with Trump.
and having pleaded guilty to tax evasion, false statements and campaign finance violations related to the Daniels case, along with a separate pleading In addition to making false statements to Congress, he seems tailor-made to be accused of lying to settle scores with his former boss. Furthermore, for the loyalty-obsessed Trump, the prospect of viciously attacking a traitor promises additional psychological rewards.
But before the jury has even heard from Trump's bête noire, the prosecution has taken great steps to neutralize any plan to undermine Cohen's testimony.
They have done so, first and foremost, by presenting a wealth of evidence that prospectively corroborates what Cohen will say. (And after his testimony before the grand jury and numerous meetings with the district attorney's office, the prosecution knows what Cohen is going to say down to the last comma.)
Prosecutors' decision to present their story through David Pecker, former CEO of the company that owns the National Enquirer, worked beautifully. Pecker, a sort of Runyonesque scoundrel in his business affairs, was completely forthcoming on the stand. And he gave many details that involved Cohen and that he will echo. Those details included a key August 2015 meeting in which Pecker said first trump promised that it would stifle stories of his alleged former sexual partners that might come forward now that he was a presidential candidate.
All the important witnesses since Pecker have also covered ground that Cohen will retread. When the jury hears the story of Trump's one-time fixer, he will be familiar in almost every detail of him.
Almost but not all. Only Cohen and Trump could have known certain details of the alleged falsification of documents, the basis of the 34 criminal counts of the indictment.
Still, the district attorney will be able to respond to the defense's ferocious attacks on Cohen by pointing out, in traditional procedural fashion, that the jury need not rely solely on his word because of all the corroboration.
Indeed, the prosecution's case has been peppered with disparaging characterizations of Cohen by his own witnesses, who have called him a “moron” and worse. It's another sign that the district attorney will argue that the case neither stands nor falls based on Cohen's testimony.
And much of what follows from Cohen will reinforce his testimony. Longtime Trump aide Hope Hicks believes she will provide devastating corroboration of Cohen's testimony about “the Boss,” including his firsthand account of the 2015 meeting.
The ample corroborating evidence is just one way the prosecution is cutting off the defense's main line of attack. Equally important is that prosecutors have constructed and reinforced a narrative that reinforces Cohen's story. It moves from the initial encounter, through the efforts to “catch and kill” the stories of a Trump Tower Doorman and a playboy modeland then to the critically important “Access Hollywood“A tape that left the Trump campaign in an existential crisis.
The recording, which surfaced shortly before the election and in which Trump was seen bragging about sexually assaulting women, led Republican Party leaders such as John McCain to withdraw their support for Trump. The jury heard evidence Friday that key players in the trap-and-kill plot were confident that Trump would not be able to recover from the revelation.
Enter Daniels, who had recently resumed her efforts to turn her alleged affair with Trump into a payday. If the campaign was on life support, his account threatened to go offline.
The story that prosecutors have presented from multiple angles thus leads to the conclusion that the dealings with Daniels could have had only one motivation: saving the campaign. And that meant that not only did Daniels have to be paid, but the purpose of the payment had to be hidden.
The force of this narrative has Team Trump staring down an almost insurmountable slope. It's not just that Cohen's explanation of Trump's alleged plan and purposes is strongly corroborated by other witnesses; is that no other explanation would make sense of the entire mosaic of evidence.
The prosecution's collection of that evidence leaves the defense without a viable counternarrative. Suppose Trump's team beats Cohen for days in questioning and reiterates at the end that he can't be trusted. What alternative story can you offer to dispel a reasonable doubt about the district attorney's account?
As Pecker testified and we will likely hear repeated at closing, Cohen couldn't buy the lunch without Trump's approval. Is it even remotely possible that he would nevertheless take out a home equity loan and pay Daniels $130,000 without Trump's knowledge and direction? The Manhattan jury might be expected to conclude, in a word, “Fuhgeddaboudit.”
That's not to say the prosecution is moving toward a guilty verdict or that the jury's response to Cohen doesn't matter. Charges of falsifying business records are still vulnerable to technical challenges involving intent and other issues. Especially with two lawyers on the jury, settling that part of the case could be difficult. But with a broader rejection of Cohen's testimony looking unlikely, the defense's options for avoiding a conviction are diminishing.
Harry Litman is the host of Podcast “Talking about federals” and the Talking about San Diego Speaker series. @harrylitman
