Donald Trump’s onetime fixer Michael Cohen takes the stand once more Thursday within the hush-money trial of his previous boss. On this interview, Andrew Weissmann, a legislation professor and former prosecutor, argues that Mr. Trump’s attorneys are dropping the ball in constructing another narrative.
Beneath is a evenly edited transcript of the audio piece. To take heed to this piece, click on the play button under.
Patrick Healy: I’m Patrick Healy, deputy editor of New York Occasions Opinion, and it’s no shock that the story I’m listening to essentially the most this week is Trump’s trial in Manhattan.
And like everybody else, I’m making an attempt to learn the tea leaves on whether or not this would be the first jury to convict an American president. However I’m additionally interested by what’s going to come after. We all know that within the presidential race, some swing voters may very well be swayed by a Trump conviction. So this trial could play an influential function within the election this November.
And what I wish to know at this level within the trial is, how efficient has the prosecution been? And what’s going to and what ought to Trump’s protection do subsequent?
Andrew Weissmann is a legislation professor and former prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s particular counsel investigation of Donald Trump.
Andrew, thanks for making this a New York Occasions day for you out of courtroom. We actually respect you doing this and coming in.
Andrew Weissmann: A day without work from courtroom.
Healy: You’ve been within the courtroom this week. Take us all into the courtroom. Who’s essentially the most attention-grabbing to look at for you? The witness on the stand, the jury, the choose or Trump?
Weissmann: Not Trump. I do know from outdoors of the courtroom, clearly there’s plenty of motive to consider him. I feel the factor that actually struck me, and I want individuals might hear it, is Justice Juan Merchan. His voice is so calm. It’s quiet authority. He’s so clearly the grownup within the room, and he’s controlling that courtroom. I feel the explanation you’re not seeing shenanigans on one aspect or the opposite is due to that aura that he has and the demeanor. The best way during which he carries himself is actually spectacular.
Healy: Andrew, the prosecution is predicted to complete up this week, however first, Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen has been on the stand, and you latterly wrote a chunk for Occasions Opinion about what you have been listening for in Cohen’s testimony: detailed and direct proof of Trump knowingly going by way of with the cover-up.
How do you suppose Cohen’s testimony to this point has measured up, and is it conviction-worthy testimony?
Weissmann: Going into the calling of Michael Cohen, one of many issues that struck me was how sturdy the case was, and I feel surprisingly sturdy, each on the marketing campaign election interference half and on the cover-up. I believed the state did a extremely masterful job in the best way it was introduced and the layers of proof and corroboration that have been popping out.
The final hour of his direct testimony was a type of outstanding second on the trial. He’s very near the jury field. The witness stand and the jury field are proper subsequent to one another. Donald Trump and the protection desk are a lot farther away. And for the final hour, when he’s speaking about his crimes and why he did them and what he did for Donald Trump, he was speaking on to the jurors. He was wanting straight at them. And the jurors have been wanting straight at him. I’m not saying that which means he’ll be believed or what their evaluation is, however it was hanging when it comes to their capability to evaluate him as a witness.
What Michael Cohen brings to the desk and has, I feel, delivered, if believed, is direct proof.
Healy: As a former prosecutor, you’ve had circumstances which have relied on essential witnesses like Michael Cohen. As you take heed to Cohen’s testimony, is he giving the sort of testimony that you simply as a former prosecutor would say: That is actually serving to my case? This might result in a conviction within the case that I’m prosecuting?
Weissmann: So the brief reply is sure. Whether or not it’s placing Salvatore Gravano, the underboss of the Gambino household, on the stand; whether or not it’s Rick Gates, who cooperated in opposition to Paul Manafort; this can be a well-known phenomenon of getting insiders testify as much as any individual who’s alleged to be extra culpable.
Michael Cohen gave an actual hen’s-eye view after which an in depth view as to the scheme and the way it was carried out. So I’m fairly certain that the prosecution may be very blissful together with his direct testimony. Whenever you’re a prosecutor, you’re at all times on tenterhooks on cross-examination, however I feel there’s no query that the direct testimony, I feel they need to be very happy with.
Healy: As I’ve been following this, Trump’s protection lawyer has been spraying a sequence of fireside at Cohen in numerous methods, together with making this private concerning the protection lawyer and Michael Cohen. Do you see a technique baked into that? Is that about ripping Michael Cohen down? Is it about making the jury simply come away considering this can be a unhealthy dude? Do you see a technique to the insanity, so to talk?
Weissmann: I feel there’s some methodology to later elements of the cross-examination, speaking about that he’s been earning money off of Donald Trump and his relationship to Donald Trump, that he desires to see him convicted, that he has made numerous detrimental statements about Donald Trump just lately, that he beforehand appreciated Donald Trump. I imply, all of that’s truthful sport. Although I agree along with your query that it’s been very scattershot.
The personalization, I believed, was a catastrophe. That’s how the lawyer began the cross-examination. There was an instantaneous objection. It was sustained. You don’t want to have your first line of cross-examination be objected to and sustained.
Jurors usually just like the choose. And now having learn what the choose mentioned at sidebar privately to the lawyer, I don’t know the tone of voice, however to me it screamed out as, “What on God’s inexperienced earth do you suppose you’re doing? Don’t inject your self personally into the case.”
Healy: Let’s flip to Trump’s protection. At this level, his workforce isn’t anticipated to name many witnesses. What’s their technique right here? What do you consider it?
Weissmann: We don’t know but whether or not Donald Trump will take the stand or not. I can think about that his protection workforce strongly is advising him to not. However simply to be clear, the legislation is, that call is the defendant’s determination, not protection counsel’s determination.
It is rather typical, although, for there to be no protection case or a really brief protection case. It wouldn’t be uncommon to have them simply relaxation as a result of bear in mind, our system of justice is that the state has the burden of proving every factor of the crime past an affordable doubt. The protection lawyer doesn’t need to do something.
However typically the protection places forth another narrative that they suppose might create affordable doubt; to say, it’s doable that there’s this different manner of taking a look at it. I discover one factor that’s hanging right here is there isn’t a various narrative that has come out in the course of the trial.
Healy: So what do you suppose the protection must do at this level for the jury — or a single juror, because the case could also be — to return again with an acquittal or a hung jury for Donald Trump?
Weissmann: I feel they do have to cross-examine Michael Cohen as exhausting as doable, as a result of clearly when you imagine Michael Cohen, I feel the guilt will probably be proved.
I do suppose the protection could have one thing else going for it, which isn’t one thing that the choose goes to say, which is — as a result of that is the previous president, there are jurors who could also be in search of that further piece of proof which will maintain the state to a good larger normal than proof past an affordable doubt. The place among the jurors are considering, “Gee, if I’m going to take this step, I wish to see further proof.”
Healy: Andrew, you’ve simply recognized one thing that’s so on my thoughts. I’ve actually been questioning about this with a jury of standard Individuals. It’s that this can be a former president who’s on trial.
As I used to be listening to Michael Cohen’s testimony, inform me if I’m incorrect — it appeared like even Michael Cohen was saying that Donald Trump didn’t actually say the phrases “falsify the enterprise information” or “this can be a cost to cowl you on that cash you despatched to Stormy,” or one thing. And if I’m an everyday individual on that jury, and this can be a former president of the USA dealing with felony expenses or conviction, I feel there’s part of me that desires to listen to Michael Cohen or some corroboration that former President Trump mentioned very particularly, “I would like you to do X,” and that X is clearly against the law. I’m unsure I’ve heard that. Have you ever?
Weissmann: I feel that’s going to be argued by the protection, and it needs to be argued by the protection. But when I have been the prosecutor, what I’d say in response to that reliable concern is that’s not how felony conspiracies work. And that’s not how Donald Trump truly behaves.
When he says, “Simply maintain it,” when it comes to paying the cash to silence Stormy Daniels, you don’t say, “I simply wish to just remember to know what I imply is, it’s essential to pay the cash.” I imply, for God’s sake, he signed the checks.
We used to say that in organized crime circumstances that you simply’re not going to listen to that the members of the Gambino household mentioned: “We’re the Gambino household. We’re a RICO conspiracy and that is an enterprise and we’re going to all signal an indenture settlement,” as if it’s a enterprise deal on Wall Road. When you might have somebody describing a felony conspiracy, I feel you search for that the place issues are mentioned, in that — I received’t say oblique manner — however they don’t need to be spelled out.
They’ve recognized one another for years. Add in that the jury has heard that he’s a micromanager. They’ve heard that he’s a penny pincher, they usually’ve additionally heard plenty of proof about how he doesn’t desire a paper path. He needed believable deniability. He didn’t signal issues due to that. He mentioned, “I don’t wish to use electronic mail as a result of individuals go down as a result of they use electronic mail.”
The jurors will decide. Clearly, you by no means know what a jury goes to do, however I’d be considering what I’m considering proper now, which is that is an extremely sturdy case.
It’s possible you’ll be proper, Patrick, that they needed extra. We’ll all discover out fairly quickly.
Healy: We’ll see. Thanks a lot for becoming a member of us.
Weissmann: Thanks for inviting me.
Ideas? Electronic mail us at theopinions@nytimes.com.
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin, Alison Bruzek and Annie-Rose Strasser. Mixing by Carole Sabouraud. Authentic music by Pat McCusker and Isaac Jones. Reality-checking by Kate Sinclair and Mary-Marge Locker. Viewers technique by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. Particular because of Patrick Healy.
The Occasions is dedicated to publishing a variety of letters to the editor. We’d like to listen to what you consider this or any of our articles. Listed here are some suggestions. And right here’s our electronic mail: letters@nytimes.com.
Comply with the New York Occasions Opinion part on Fb, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.
