In a fiery cross-examination during Trump’s New York fraud trial, the former president’s attorney, Alina Habba, relentlessly attacked Michael Cohen, branding him as a “liar.” Habba’s aggressive approach included cutting into Cohen’s testimony and scolding him for not being on his podcast, “Mea Culpa.” Despite the tense exchanges, Cohen remained composed on the stand, providing his testimony. Habba’s tactics were met with intervention from the judge, who reminded her to ask questions rather than make statements. The cross-examination is set to continue on Wednesday, with Cohen being a significant adversary for Trump due to his involvement in multiple legal cases. Cohen had previously admitted to lying about Trump’s Moscow plans and has faced perjury accusations.
Table of Contents
Overview
This article provides a comprehensive summary of the fiery cross-examination of Michael Cohen by Donald Trump’s lawyer during Trump’s New York fraud trial. It examines the tactics used by Trump’s lawyer, the allegations made against Trump by Cohen, and the personal attacks and involvement of Cohen’s wife during the trial. Additionally, it discusses the reaction from Trump and offers a conclusion on the ongoing testimony.
Summary
In a heated cross-examination, Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, repeatedly attacked Michael Cohen as a liar during his testimony at Donald Trump’s New York fraud trial. Habba interrupted Cohen’s answers and accused him of lying under oath. She compared Cohen’s behavior in court to his podcast, “Mea Culpa,” which often targets Trump with vitriol. The judge intervened to prevent Habba from making speeches and redirect the examination to a focus on questioning. Despite the courtroom confusion, Cohen remained composed and will continue his testimony the following day.
Background information
Michael Cohen, once a key insider for the Trump Organization, has become one of Donald Trump’s most significant legal opponents due to his involvement in the Manhattan fraud trial and a hush-money case. Cohen admitted to lying to Congress about Trump’s plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 election. He also pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion charges, acknowledging that he lied to a federal judge. Cohen’s credibility is under scrutiny, and he may face perjury allegations.
Fiery Cross-Examination by Trump’s Lawyer
During the cross-examination, Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, launched an aggressive attack on Michael Cohen. She repeatedly called him a liar and interrupted his answers, claiming that he had lied under oath multiple times. Habba emphasized that Cohen was not on his podcast, “Mea Culpa,” and scolded him for behaving as if he was. The judge quickly intervened, reminding Habba that she should ask questions rather than make statements. Despite this, Habba continued to challenge Cohen’s credibility throughout the half hour of the cross-examination.
Comparison to Cohen’s podcast
Habba’s reference to Cohen’s podcast, “Mea Culpa,” highlighted the contrast in Cohen’s behavior during the cross-examination. The podcast is known for its vitriolic criticism of Trump, and Habba tried to expose this bias. By reminding Cohen that he was not on his podcast, Habba aimed to demonstrate that his testimonies should be focused on providing unbiased and factual information relevant to the trial.
Judge’s intervention
The judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, promptly interrupted Habba’s aggressive line of questioning during the cross-examination. He reminded her that she must ask questions rather than make speeches. This intervention aimed to restore order to the courtroom and ensure a fair and impartial examination of Cohen.
Habba’s response
In response to the judge’s intervention, Habba made a statement about the need for both sides to refrain from making speeches. It was unclear whether she agreed with the judge’s directive or attempted to deflect the directive onto Cohen. Despite the judge’s reminder, Habba’s cross-examination continued to focus on challenging Cohen’s credibility.
Continuation of cross-examination
The cross-examination will continue the next day, as Habba was only able to conduct the examination for half an hour before the court adjourned. Cohen’s credibility and the questioning of his past actions are likely to be central to the ongoing examination.
Allegations Against Trump
One of the main allegations made by Michael Cohen against Donald Trump is that Trump directly ordered the manipulation of his net-worth numbers. Cohen claimed that Trump instructed him to inflate his net worth for personal and business gain. During the cross-examination, Trump’s lawyer attempted to discredit Cohen’s allegations by focusing on his credibility.
Cross-examination focused on Cohen’s credibility
In an effort to impeach Cohen’s testimony, Habba interrogated him about his history of lying. She repeatedly asked if Cohen had lied under oath and accused him of perjury. By focusing on Cohen’s past actions, Habba aimed to undermine his credibility and cast doubt on the veracity of his allegations against Trump.
Impeaching a witness
The attack on Cohen’s credibility through the cross-examination is a common legal strategy referred to as “impeaching” a witness. By demonstrating inconsistencies in a witness’s past statements or showing a history of lying, the defense aims to weaken the witness’s testimony and cast doubt on their credibility.
Cohen’s history of lying
Michael Cohen has admitted to lying under oath in the past. He initially lied to Congress about Trump’s intentions regarding the construction of a Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 election. Cohen also pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion charges in 2019 and admitted that he lied to a federal judge. Habba used these past instances of lying to challenge Cohen’s credibility during the cross-examination.
Potential perjury accusations
The focus on Cohen’s past lies during the cross-examination opens the possibility of perjury accusations against him. If Cohen is found to have lied under oath during his testimony, he could face additional legal consequences. Habba’s line of questioning aimed to establish a pattern of dishonesty and further weaken Cohen’s credibility as a witness.
Personal Attacks and Involvement of Cohen’s Wife
Throughout the cross-examination, Alina Habba launched personal attacks on Michael Cohen and introduced his wife into the questioning. These personal attacks and involvement of Cohen’s wife added to the chaos and confusion in the courtroom.
Habba brings up Cohen’s wife
During the cross-examination, Habba questioned Cohen about whether he had disclosed his perjury to his wife during his 2019 tax plea. By involving Cohen’s wife in the questioning, Habba attempted to further challenge his credibility and integrity.
Question about perjury disclosure to Cohen’s wife
Habba directly asked Cohen if he had ever told his wife that he was committing perjury during his 2019 tax plea. This line of questioning aimed to expose any potential discrepancies or inconsistencies in Cohen’s previous statements and actions.
Courtroom chaos and confusion
The mention of Cohen’s wife led to chaos and confusion in the courtroom. Cohen objected to the question, and Habba responded by telling him that he did not have the right to object. The objection was then contested by the attorney general’s lawyers, and the lead defense lawyer rushed to Habba’s defense. The judge struggled to maintain order and resolve the dispute.
Lawyers’ involvement
The involvement of the attorney general’s lawyers and the lead defense lawyer further complicated the courtroom proceedings. Their objections and support for specific lines of questioning added to the chaos and confusion surrounding Cohen’s testimony.
Judge’s response
The judge questioned whether the question about Cohen telling his wife about perjury fell under spousal privilege. Habba apologized for the question but acknowledged that it had triggered a strong reaction from Cohen. The judge’s response aimed to address the legal implications and relevance of involving Cohen’s wife in the cross-examination.
Reaction from Trump and Conclusion
Following the courtroom chaos, Donald Trump commented on Michael Cohen, referring to him as a “disgraced felon” in front of the news cameras. Trump’s remark reflects his continued dismissal of Cohen’s credibility and attempts to discredit him.
The ongoing cross-examination and Cohen’s subsequent testimony will continue to play a crucial role in the trial. The focus on Cohen’s credibility, including his history of lying, brings into question the veracity of his allegations against Trump. As the trial progresses, further examination of evidence and witnesses will shed light on the case’s complexities and determine the impact on Trump’s legal position.