Analysis: Did Trump's legal team assume this approach would sway Cohen?

Perspective: Did Trump's attorneys assume this tactic would sway Cohen?

### TRUMP LEGAL TRIAL CHONICLES

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen is attending Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal trial and pens his experiences for this CNN Opinion series. Read previous entries:\- Michael Cohen pushes Trump's criminal trial past a critical point\- I've questioned Michael Cohen. The jury might be surprised by this key witness\- You can't ignore the expertise of Trump's legal team

In the afternoon of Tuesday, primary defense attorney Todd Blanche spent several hours questioning Cohen to disintegrate evidence. However, the cross-exploration was uneven and Cohen, similar to Stormy Daniels earlier, maintained his composure. At least for now, the prosecution's case stays unaltered. Whether it'll change in the days to come is uncertain. To say the least, the cross-examination of Cohen had a dismal commencement.

The day started with testimony on January and February 2017 meetings Cohen had with Trump - the third and fourth of four critical Cohen-Trump encounters mentioned in an earlier trial journal article. Just like the previous day, the prosecution used e-mails, bills, and photographs to meticulously corroborate these two meetings, where Cohen testified about Trump's participation in the presumed unlawful repayment scheme, founded on the claim's 34 felony document fabrication charges.

This encompassed Trump ordering Cohen during the February White House gathering to "handle Allen [Weisselberg, former CFO of the Trump Organization]." Weisselberg's handwritten notes of the clandestine hush money cover-up have been used to fatal effect in illustrating the $130,000 hush money settlement made to pornographic actress Daniels to silence her accusations about an illicit encounter with Trump before the 2016 presidential elections (which Trump denies).

During the first hour of Cohen's Tuesday testimony, the prosecution applied a trial lawyer's method termed "drawing the sting." Essentially, this involves envisaging how a witness might be indicted on cross-examination and alluding to it during their direct examination to mitigate its influence on the audience.

For hours, Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger inquired about Cohen's many lies downplaying Trump's participation in the Daniels payoff, pressuring others to do the same, and about Cohen's previous criminal convictions, including for perjury. Cohen justified his actions by saying he behaved this way "out of loyalty" to Trump "and to safeguard him."

One of the most impactful portions of "drawing the sting" occurred when Hoffinger interrogated Cohen about his confession during the Trump civil fraud trial only a few months ago of lying when he pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax and bank fraud. Cohen clarified he did not dispute the underlying acts of tax evasion or bank report omissions but felt the offenses weren't worthy of prosecution. He, however, alleged being coerced by federal prosecutors into pleading guilty through a time-sensitive threat to charge his wife. When the legal team brings up this subject in the week to come, they'll not be able to accuse Cohen of a false statement to a judge, as he'd previously explained feeling coerced.

The direct examination concluded before lunch, culminating in a touching segment as Cohen testified about Trump: "I regret doing things for him that I shouldn't have — lying, bullying people... but to maintain my loyalty and accomplish things he requested, I broke my moral compass, and I paid the penalty, as has my family."

The anticipation was as high as at any moment in the overall trial as we anticipated Blanche starting the cross-examination. Clearly, people usually trickle back from lunch at different times, but when I returned to the courthouse entrance, large numbers were already gathered for priority mezzanine seats.

Because the defense lags, Blanche had to immediately commence with fervor, and he did - but it was a miss as he inquired if Cohen pokefun at him in a TikTok posting as a crying little s--t*". Amongst his casual demeanor, Cohen noted the quote "sounds like something I would say," inspiring a smile from Blanche's own colleague Susan Necheles**.

However, this had no relation to the facts in the trial, and the subsequent question about Cohen disparaging Necheles also garnered objections that were sustained, prompting a bench conference with Judge Juan Merchan. Although we'll have to wait for the transcript to know what was said, the judge seemed to reprimand Blanche and ordered the questions struck from the record.

The jury witnessed an uncomfortable sight as Blanche tried to get a response from Cohen with questions about his frequent media appearances, even though the DA was against it. Despite their reluctance, Blanche continued probing Cohen's anti-Trump podcast, which he openly admitted to, as well as his selling of anti-Trump merchandise, which might raise suspicion of financial motives.

Blanche later gained some momentum by comparing Cohen's poor recall of conversations with the DA's office a year ago to his vivid memory of those from 2016. He also managed to highlight some of Cohen's biases by eliciting admissions about wanting Trump to be convicted and selling a T-shirt of Trump in jail. Yet, when confronting Cohen with his most provocative social media comments, including calling Trump a "dictator douchebag" and a "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain," the witness showed no sign of being affected.

These queries did not, in my view, significantly weaken Cohen's bond with the jury, hamper his credibility or cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence. There might have been some improvement in Blanche's defense strategy after the midday break as he explored Cohen's motive of seeking assistance in reducing his federal prison sentence when he started cooperating with the DA. Nevertheless, the progress made was minimal.

The judge eventually proposed a break for the afternoon, and it was evident that Blanche had failed to achieve the impactful presentation that was required. In fact, it was not even close.

We are still in the early stages of the cross-examination, and the situation could turn in favor of Blanche or turn worse for Cohen. However, as my late mother would say, you only get one chance to make a first impression, and Blanche's was average at best. Like Daniels before him, Cohen appears to be making a good impression during the cross-examination, at least at this stage. Blanche has some time off before court resumes on Wednesday and should use it to regroup and revitalize his approach. We will see what comes out of the following session.

Read also:

Despite the defense's attempt to discredit Michael Cohen during the cross-examination, his composure and the prosecution's solid evidence presentation have so far maintained the strength of their case, leaving the jury uncertain about any potential changes in the near future.
The CNN Opinion series, featuring legal analyst Norm Eisen's experiences at Donald Trump's criminal trial, provides valuable insights into the proceedings, shedding light on various aspects such as Cohen's testimony and the defense's strategies, offering readers diverse perspectives on the ongoing case.

Source: edition.cnn.com