Everyone was wondering what would happen when Michael Cohen took the stand this morning. Both Trump supporters and the rest of us were holding our breath. Judge Merchan and the prosecutors too. Pundits had a field day talking about the possibility of a vindictive, out for blood Cohen being uncontrollable. Trump supporters and Trump himself were hoping, some even praying for that because it would provide ammo to attack back on cross. Those of us who believe Trump deserves both conviction and to have the book thrown at him were worried he’d tank the case. It’s Team Trump that’s disappointed tonight but it does illustrate something I read about what seems like an odd cross examination strategy from the defense.
In an article by Newsweek well known legal analyist/pundit Andrew Weissman called Team Trump’s cross examination strategy during this trial “irrational.” Strong stuff. Weissman has been around the block too. He’s prosecuted mobsters and some of the Enron folks during his long career. I pay attention because that experience gives him considerable insight into persuading juries in trials of people who are paranoid about not leaving records. Of giving orders to others (to do illegal things) in code so to speak. But that’s not the issue we’re talking about right now.
Instead Weissman spoke about the cross examination of Daniels, which many think may well have backfired on Trump. Weissman correctly points out that legally it doesn’t matter if Daniels made up the 2006 incident or not. The only thing that matters legally is that Daniels was prepared to make a public statement at a really bad time for Trump, and that Trump not only went to great lengths to prevent it but broke laws in how he went about it. Yes, had Trump simply written her a check in exchange for signing an NDA it would have been perfectly legal. IF someone managed to somehow did it up down the road it wouldn’t have mattered.
Anyway, Weissman goes on to talk about other witnesses that were quite devastating to Trump which mostly got a pass on cross. Weissman cited David Pecker and Hope Hicks and how devastating they were to Trump. Yet little was done to impugn their testimony:
Weissmann noted that David Pecker, the former National Enquirer boss, has testified about conversations with Trump regarding an alleged “catch and kill” scheme to buy the rights to negative stories with the intention to never publish them.
The analyst added that Trump’s former longtime aide Hope Hicks had also given “devastating testimony” about Trump’s knowledge of the scheme.
“Those are the witnesses that needed to be crossed, those are the witnesses where you’d have to come up with something to say to the jury about why they got it wrong — either they misremembered or they’re lying. And yet, the person who was subjected to this withering cross-examination was Stormy Daniels,” Weissmann said.
It’s a thoughtful take on things. However shortly after reading it I was hit with a thought. Trump has a very good legal team in this trial. Not the very best, but still very good but they sure don’t seem to be performing up to par in this trial and the likely explanation is that as is his way Trump won’t listen to them. HE tells them how to conduct their work. He knows more about any and everything than anyone else and it’s well known numerous high profile lawyers and firms have turned him down over the years because he simply won’t listen to sound legal advice. (Ok, so there are also concerns about getting paid but losing high profile cases because Trump ignored their legal counsel makes them look bad!)
Trump is a child of TV and once had his own TV show. I’ve always thought so-called Reality TV was stupid. Bullshit. ALL of it so I never watched a single episode of Donald’s show but lots of people did. Trump isn’t book smart, or even all that street smart but one asset he has had is media savvy. An ability to promote himself and his “brand.” He treated his Presidency like a reality TV show. As it turned out it wasn’t as successful as he thought. He’s treated his civil trials the same way, playing to the public but in the courtroom he’s had his fat orange ass handed to him time after time.
He’s trying to do the same in his Manhattan criminal trial, and it’s working less well there both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion that Trump can accept. He’s in CRIMINAL COURT now, and doesn’t get to define the rules. Oh, he can break them to a degree and he has but this judge has his number and when he says “see you in court tomorrow” Trump can’t choose whether or not he wants to show up. That’s just killing Trump right there. He’s finding ways around the gag order but his attempts to show up the judge (standing up and leaving before the judge for example) or trying to intimidate witnesses right there in the court have been slapped down.
That is truly humiliating for Trump. The only thing worse would be if the judge was a woman, or even worse a black woman. Say judge Chutkan down in DC where he’d be right now if not for SCOTUS. Perhaps late at night he consoles himself with thoughts of at least it’s a white guy making him behave instead of a black woman slapping him down! But getting back to the public show Trump wants, I think it’s clear that from the outset his orders to his lawyers on how the trial would be conducted were clear. Don’t waste much time on most witnesses’ cross examinations, and definitely don’t go after Pecker (who knows what he’s got on Trump?) or Hope Hicks who probably has all manner of stuff beyond what she’s already spilled that’s bad for him.
However Daniels and Cohen are familiar names. Making a bigly YUGE show of blasting them on cross examination would be the ticket. Paint a PR picture of a “porno slut” trying to extort him, and a vindictive “out for blood” disgruntled former employee and if convicted (which even Trump thinks he will be I’m sure) he figured he could spin his way out of trouble. His MAGAs of course were and still aren’t a concern. However he knows there’s a bit of softening of Evangelical “Christian” support and of course he’s worried about suburban Republicans who’ve defected before and might again. And conservative leaning independents.
The slut-shaming of Daniels he reasoned would take care of the “Christians” and maybe neutralize things to a degree with the other groups. So would causing Cohen to go into meltdown mode. And hey, it might just be enough to get at least one juror into “reasonable doubt” mode and cause a hung jury. But I’m convinced the real audience for Trump is those who will watch TV coverage. It always is. And since Trump considers himself the master of the medium of television and news downplaying everyone else and focusing on just TWO witnesses against him, Daniels and Cohen would be the focus of this TV show he’s trying to create.
Well, Daniels gave as good as she got from Team Trump. It remains to be seen how it will or will not shore up support with the fundies. And Cohen? Given his antics leading up to the trial Team Trump had to be feeling if not good then hopeful this morning. Hopeful that Cohen would come across as bitter and vindictive, projecting a “f**k you Trump” at him with every answer to every prosecution question. Maybe even rambling on with attacks to the point of the judge having to step in and admonish him. It didn’t turn out that way.
Cohen by all accounts was calm and controlled. He ignored Trump and kept his answers crisp and on-point. People saw a Michael Cohen they didn’t expect today. Hell, even the defense was surprised as apparently there weren’t all that many objections. Of course the real test will be whether Cohen can maintain an even strain when cross examination starts. He knows he’s in for the kind of gratuitous attacks Daniels got. I don’t want to go counting chickens at this point but if today was any indication Cohen has gotten the proverbial memo. Be calm, and answer questions in a straightforward manner. Don’t raise the voice. Don’t go after Trump. Just keep the answers short and sweet.
If Cohen could do that Trump will be toast. It will turn out that during opening arguments Todd Blanche wrote checks with his mouth that he couldn’t cash with his ass. Cohen could turn out to be the final example of that and being the last big witness the jury will remember it. Worse, I’m sure the prosecution will have pointed out all the other things Blanche promised that he didn’t deliver on.
But most importantly, it’s something that pundits on non-Fox networks will emphasize. Even on Fox there might be a bit of commentary about Daniels or Cohen not having turned out to be as beneficial to Trump as he’d hoped. Keep that thought because if THAT happens it will matter. In the end though I think Weissman is right but maybe missed the larger picture. That for Trump this whole thing was going to be a form of a TV show that he’d be directing. Except he’s not got complete creative control. Judge Marchan does. And that’s what’s angering Trump so much. HIS script is being rewritten and his attempts to steer it back to his original vision aren’t working.
Cohen is not someone ‘crazed’ by vengeance, he’s someone who knows revenge is best served cold, preferably with silver service and nicely starched linen. Next to Trump he’ll appear nicely normal, rational, and believable.