In the ongoing trial of former President Donald Trump in New York, the prosecution has made significant progress in neutralizing the defense’s strategy of discrediting key witness Michael Cohen. Trump’s former fixer and attack dog, Cohen, played a central role in the events outlined in the indictment, including his involvement in hushing up Stormy Daniels’ allegations of a sexual encounter with Trump. With Cohen having already pleaded guilty to multiple charges, the defense aims to portray him as an unreliable witness seeking revenge against his former boss.
However, the prosecution has preemptively countered this strategy by presenting a wealth of evidence that corroborates Cohen’s forthcoming testimony. By introducing David Pecker, the former CEO of the company that owned the National Enquirer, as a witness, the prosecution successfully established a foundation for Cohen’s narrative. Pecker’s testimony included details of a crucial meeting in August 2015, where he promised Trump to suppress stories from potential sexual partners who might come forward during his presidential campaign.
Other witnesses have also covered ground that aligns with Cohen’s account, ensuring that his testimony will resonate with the jury. While only Cohen and Trump possess certain details regarding the alleged falsification of documents, the prosecution’s case has been sprinkled with witnesses who have disparaged Cohen’s character. This approach aims to emphasize that the case does not solely rely on Cohen’s word but is supported by substantial corroboration.
Hope Hicks, a longtime Trump aide, is expected to provide further corroboration of Cohen’s testimony, particularly regarding the 2015 meeting. The prosecution has also constructed a narrative that strengthens Cohen’s story, tracing the events from the initial meeting to the efforts to suppress stories involving a Trump Tower doorman and a Playboy model. The narrative culminates with the release of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, which severely impacted the Trump campaign.
The prosecution’s extensive corroboration and narrative construction have effectively undermined the defense’s main line of attack. Even if the defense aggressively cross-examines Cohen and questions his credibility, they struggle to present an alternative story that would cast doubt on the district attorney’s account. The defense’s options for preventing a conviction are dwindling, as the jury is likely to find the prosecution’s evidence and corroboration compelling.
