According to experts, the solid evidence presented by Trump prosecutors strengthens Michael Cohen’s testimony.

They argue that Cohen was not acting alone, but rather at the direction of Donald Trump himself. The evidence presented in court shows a pattern of behavior that implicates Trump in the illegal activities that Cohen has admitted to. This includes hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, as well as other financial crimes.

Furthermore, Cohen has provided detailed testimony about his interactions with Trump and his knowledge of Trump’s involvement in these illegal activities. This testimony has been backed up by other witnesses who have corroborated Cohen’s account of events.

In light of this evidence, legal analysts believe that Trump’s defense strategy of discrediting Cohen as a dishonest actor is unlikely to be successful. The weight of the evidence against Trump is substantial, and it is becoming increasingly clear that he may have played a direct role in the crimes for which Cohen has been convicted.

As the trial continues, it will be interesting to see how Trump’s legal team responds to the mounting evidence against him. It is clear that they will have a difficult task ahead of them in trying to defend their client against the overwhelming evidence of his involvement in criminal activity.

Trump’s former attorney, Cohen, stated in court this week that Trump instructed him to give $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet before the 2016 election regarding a supposed 2006 sexual incident. Cohen also mentioned that Trump agreed to falsify records to conceal the payment.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche tried to discredit Cohen’s reliability during the cross-examination, painting him as a betrayer who falsely accused his ex-boss out of resentment. The defense team set the stage to argue that Trump had no involvement in the reimbursement intricacies that formed the core of the case against Cohen.

Even though prosecutors couldn’t completely confirm Cohen’s accounts of his private talks with Trump, they did show that Trump knew about the scheme, painting him as someone who closely oversees his family business and finances, according to Professor Rebecca Roiphe from New York Law School.

A New York businessman for many years, Trump made his political debut by running for the White House. According to the jury, he authored books containing advice like: “Make sure to review all invoices” and “If you’re not familiar with every detail of your work, right down to the paper clips, you’re in for some unpleasant surprises.”

A ex-prosecutor from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, Roiphe mentioned: “The prosecution did a great job in confirming other parts of Michael Cohen’s testimony thoroughly,” and also said: “There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence linking Trump to the payments.”

Trump, who is 20 years older than Cohen at 77, has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to 34 felony charges. These charges accuse him of falsifying business records by claiming that the reimbursements to Cohen for the hush money paid to Daniels were actually payments for legal services.

Prosecutors claim that changing the records concealed violations of election and tax laws – as the funds were essentially an undisclosed donation to Trump’s campaign – which raises the charges from misdemeanors to felonies carrying a maximum sentence of four years in jail.

Trump is the first U.S. president to go through a criminal trial, past or present. He refutes claims of having had relations with Daniels and accuses Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of trying to meddle in his Republican campaign to reclaim the White House from President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election.

In order for Trump to be convicted, all 12 members of the jury must come to a unanimous decision that the prosecutors have sufficiently proven their case. Following the cross-examination of Cohen on Monday, the defense team will then have the opportunity to bring forth their own witnesses.

They are likely to argue that Trump – at the time transitioning into the most powerful job in the world – delegated the minutiae of business matters to deputies like Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s longtime chief financial officer.

Defense attorneys have also argued that there was nothing improper about categorizing payments to a lawyer as legal expenses.

EXPERTS CITE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

But according to specialists, the prosecutors provided ample circumstantial evidence indicating that it was highly unlikely for Trump to be unaware of his involvement in concealing a crime.

 

David Pecker, ex-publisher of the National Enquirer, stated that he assured to keep an eye out for any women sharing negative stories during a meeting with Trump and Cohen in August 2015.

Cohen secretly recorded a conversation in September 2016 where Trump seemed to be discussing a $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who claims to have had a year-long affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007. Prosecutors presented this recording as evidence. However, Trump denies any involvement in an affair.

* Jurors have seen call logs suggesting Cohen and Trump were in frequent contact during the frenzied negotiations with Daniels’ lawyer in October 2016. They saw Weisselberg’s handwritten notes outlining how Cohen would be reimbursed. Hope Hicks, Trump’s former communications aide on the campaign and in the White House, testified that Trump was a micromanager.

George Grasso, a retired New York state judge who has been present at the trial but is not involved in the case, mentioned that there is an abundance of evidence and documents that were submitted even before Cohen testified. He further added that although Cohen testifies to a significant portion of it, the evidence has already been verified.

‘THE ELEPHANT NOT IN THE ROOM’

Cohen’s claims about two crucial discussions with Trump remained unverified, despite the abundance of supporting evidence.

Cohen testified that he and Trump discussed a plan for him to be reimbursed for the Daniels payment through a series of bogus invoices and checks designed to appear as legal retainer payments at a meeting in Trump Tower shortly before his January 2017 inauguration. Cohen said they had a similar conversation in the Oval Office the next month.

The jury might hesitate due to the absence of backup evidence, especially since Weisselberg, who could potentially support or contradict Cohen’s statements, is not present at the trial.

Cohen mentioned that Weisselberg was also there during the Trump Tower meeting in January 2017. It has been stated by both the prosecutors and defense lawyers that they have no intention of summoning Weisselberg, who is currently serving a five-month sentence for perjury in a different civil fraud trial related to Trump’s business dealings.

 

Prosecutors mentioned on May 10, when the jurors were not present, that Weisselberg would probably use his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination if asked.

The attorney representing Weisselberg chose not to provide a statement.

Weisselberg is the elephant in the room, or rather the elephant that’s missing, according to Justin Danilewitz, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at law firm Saul Ewing.