‘Billed as the man who would pin the still yet-to-be-defined crime on former President Trump — Cohen incriminated himself more than anything.‘

By William Upton | The National Pulse

On the twelfth day of the Manhattan-based hush money trial of former President Donald J. Trump, prosecutors under District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought their star witness, disbarred lawyer and serial perjurer Michael Cohen.

For lack of a better description, Cohen’s testimony was underwhelming.

Billed as the man who would pin the still yet-to-be-defined crime on former President Trump — Cohen incriminated himself more than anything.

As he took the stand, Cohen appeared nervous and uneasy — a stark difference from the free-wheeling and, at times, angry Stormy Daniels who testified last week. Throughout the day, it became readily apparent that Cohen was even more of an unreliable witness than previously thought.

The disgraced former lawyer — and self-described ‘fixer’ — was unable to produce any convincing connection between Trump and the hush money payments, let alone a federal campaign finance violation.

SERIAL PERJURER TAKES THE STAND.

Susan Hoffinger, one of the prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, handled Michael Cohen’s questing throughout the day. After dispensing with standard procedural questions, Hoffinger and Cohen dove into the start of Cohen’s relationship with Donald Trump.

According to Cohen, the two became acquainted after he helped facilitate a co-op board takeover of Trump World Tower. The disbarred lawyer told Hoffinger that he was not paid for his early legal work on behalf of Trump.

Cohen recalled being hired by Trump after doing legal work for Trump Entertainment Resorts. According to Cohen, he was never actually paid the $100,000 in fees for his legal work on the resort project but was instead given a job as an executive vice president with the Trump Organization.

“He asked me if I wanted to get fired on the first day if I asked about the bill,” Cohen recalled Trump saying at the end of their meeting.

Hoffinger’s line of questioning was meant to specifically direct Cohen to recall this memory, as it served to underscore the terms — or lack thereof — of the repayment agreement regarding the Stormy Daniels money.

COHEN THE FIXER. 

As the morning wore on, Cohen began to lean into the ‘fixer’ persona he projected to those on the 2016 presidential campaign and others outside the Trump Organization.

He described how he could renegotiate unpaid bills with Trump University vendors. When Trump praised him for his work, Cohen said it felt “like I was on top of the world.”

“With press as an example, they said something that angered him, I would reach out to the press, and I would express to them their need to either redact or take the article down or we would file an action against them,” Cohen testified.

He added that he was often aggressive when addressing the problems he believed could impact the former President.

It is important to note that Hope Hicks testified that Cohen’s ‘fixer’ persona was all in his head. The former Trump campaign aide said that Cohen “used to like to call himself Mr. Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it.”

Hicks went on to note that Cohen was not supposed to be involved in 2016 campaign issues, but he was prone to going rogue.

When Hoffinger asked if it was fair to call him a “fixer,” Cohen replied: “Yes, some have described me as that.”

A USELESS RECORDING.

Just before the court broke for lunch, the jury listened to a secret recording made by Cohen of himself and allegedly Donald Trump discussing a supposed payment related to the Karen McDougal story.

However, as noted in previous witness testimony by David Pecker, the payment was never actually made to McDougal.

She had agreed to appear on the cover of Men’s Health instead, which netted Pecker‘s American Media, Inc (AMI) a far better financial windfall. In short, no conceivable crime was committed involving a non-payment to McDougal.

It appears that Bragg‘s prosecutors hope to conflate the handling of Karen McDougal’s accusations with those of Stormy Daniels despite having no recordings of payment details or anything beyond Michael Cohen’s word on the latter.

Even then, the recording of the McDougal meeting doesn’t shed much light on what Trump knew regarding the payments.

Cohen can be heard describing the need to set up a shell company while informing Trump he’s spoken with Weisselberg. Trump asked Cohen if they actually had to pay for all of this “stuff.”

At no point did Trump say what he was paying for, and when Cohen mentioned “financing,” the former President can be heard asking, with a degree of confusion, what Cohen was talking about.

COHEN’S CREDIBILITY ISSUES.

The disbarred and disgraced lawyer’s credibility has been a top concern heading into his Monday testimony. While on the stand, Cohen contradicted the testimony of David Pecker and other fellow prosecution witnesses on several occasions.

One of the most damning incidents occurred when Cohen described to Trump that the AMI negations with the McDougal payment were going fine.

Yet, at the start of the hush money trial, David Pecker testified that when he initially objected to not being reimbursed for a $150,000 payment on a call with Cohen, the attorney became irate and told Pecker that Trump was very angry with him—something directly contradicted by the evidence provided by Cohen himself.

Cohen has been convicted of lying to Congress — for which he served a two-month prison sentence. In addition, the disgraced lawyer was labeled as “perverse” and a “serial perjurer” by a federal judge in March this year.

THE TIMELINE MAKES NO SENSE. 

Cohen’s and, subsequently, District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution team’s timeline of events and payments is plagued with internal contradictions.

The disgraced lawyer appeared to insinuate that Trump was aware of the Stormy Daniels story much earlier in the election process than any evidence indicates.

Cohen testified that Trump only cared about the story’s impact on the campaign and didn’t give much worry about it being embarrassing for him or his family.

This directly contradicts several sworn witness testimonies where it was attested that Trump was not preoccupied with the campaign but rather more concerned about the impact the Access Hollywood tape and the Stormy Daniels story would have on his wife and children.

Additionally, Cohen’s timeline of events causes a problem for prosecutors as they need to prove an underlying campaign finance crime. However, per Cohen, the reimbursement payments were not made until well after the 2016 election and were not made from campaign accounts.

Cohen testified that Trump had suggested that if the story came out, he’d lose the election, yet Cohen’s alleged financial reimbursements all date to 2017.

COHEN TRIES TO FINGER TRUMP. 

Continuing on Stormy Daniels, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger pressed Cohen on details about his conversations with Trump regarding the allegations. After the Daniels story became public just days before the 2016 election, Cohen claims he spoke with Trump, who he says was irate.

“I thought you had this under control. I thought you took care of this,” Cohen alleges Trump said to him. The disgraced lawyer continued, stating Trump told him, “Just take care of it.”

According to Cohen, Trump continued: “Women are going to hate me… Guys may think it’s cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign.”

Again, prior witnesses brought by the prosecution, including Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, have directly contradicted this claim. They contend the former President was far more concerned about the impact the Daniels story —  like the Access Hollywood tape — would have on his family.

Cohen says Trump told him, “I want you to just push it out as long as you can just get past the election. Because if I win, it will have no relevance because I’m President. And if I lose, I don’t even care.”

While Cohen certainly seemed preoccupied with the election, not a single recording, text message, or email presented by the prosecution — outside Cohen’s testimony — mentioned Trump’s concerns about the 2016 race.

NONE OF THIS IS ILLEGAL.

The timeline of events and payments and the 34 charges found in the indictment continue to be an overarching problem for the prosecution. The falsifying business records charges are only enhanced from minor misdemeanors to felonies by an underlying crime.

We’re now on the second-to-last prosecution witness, and District Attorney Avlin Bragg’s team has yet to concretely show what that underlying crime even is.

In theory, and from the course of Cohen‘s testimony, it appears the prosecution believes the underlying crime is a conspiracy to violate Federal campaign finance laws.

It is important to note that the nondisclosure agreements, the alleged “catch-and-kill” scheme hatched between Cohen and Keith Davidson, and even the alleged hush money payments are all legal — meaning none constitute an underlying crime for the prosecution.

BEING DONALD TRUMP. 

Cohen’s testimony is reminiscent of the 1999 film Being John Malkovich, in which the actor’s life is told through the perspective of others who are literally inside his head.

Much of Cohen’s testimony is a stand-in for what Donald Trump may or may not have been thinking at various moments in the lead-up to, during, and just after the 2016 presidential campaign.

When the Access Hollywood tape broke, Cohen emailed campaign adviser Stephen K. Bannon, “It’s all over the place. Whose doing damage control here?” According to Cohen, he wanted to “ensure” that Trump was protected.

However, at no point does Cohen offer evidence that he was directed by Trump to “ensure” his protection or oversee “damage control” efforts. Again, Hope Hicks testified that Cohen is an individual prone to going rogue and was told that he was not to have a role in the campaign.

A tremendous amount of the prosecution’s case rests on what Micahel Cohen believes, in his mind, he was directed to do by Donald Trump — even though he may not have ever been told directly to do it.

In essence, we now know what this case boils down to: the word of a serial and perverse perjurer versus Donald Trump. ##