Michael Cohen, known for his aggressive tactics as Donald Trump’s “fixer,” appeared in court as a mild-mannered witness who described Trump’s involvement in the hush money scheme to cover up an affair with Stormy Daniels. The crux of the trial revolves around whether Trump orchestrated the scheme and falsified records to reimburse Cohen in violation of New York law. The key piece of evidence presented by Cohen was a meeting just before Trump took office, during which Trump allegedly reviewed and approved a plan to reimburse Cohen for the hush money payment to Daniels.
However, the challenge for prosecutors is that the meeting was attended by only Cohen, Trump, and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, both of whom are convicted felons with a history of dishonesty. Weisselberg is currently serving time for perjury and may not testify in the trial. Trump is not required to testify and could dispute Cohen’s version of events if he did. This places significant reliance on Cohen’s testimony alone to establish Trump’s involvement in the scheme.
During his testimony, Cohen displayed humility and self-awareness, acknowledging his past anger, bullying, and egotism. He recounted his disappointment at not being considered for a role in Trump’s White House and his initial reluctance to pursue a career in law. Cohen also detailed his reaction to a reduced bonus check and his confrontational exchange with Weisselberg over the matter. Despite his previous reputation for rage, Cohen’s demeanor in court was calm and measured.
Cohen described a meeting in which Weisselberg proposed a repayment plan to cover the hush money payment, additional costs, and tax liability incurred by Cohen. He claimed that Trump, who was present during the meeting, approved the plan and offered him a position as his personal counsel. Cohen hinted at Trump’s motives for the hush money scheme, citing Trump’s indifference towards Melania and his focus on the impact on his campaign.
Key revelations from Cohen’s testimony included Trump’s instruction to delay negotiations with Daniels until after the election and his dismissal of concerns about Melania’s reaction to the affair. These statements support the prosecution’s argument that the hush money payment was a form of election interference aimed at concealing damaging information from voters. Trump’s legal team has countered by claiming the payment was meant to protect his family from public embarrassment, rather than influence the election outcome. Throughout his testimony, Cohen provided crucial details that shed light on the inner workings of the hush money scheme.
