Criminal defense lawyer David Oscar Markus suggests that the first question he would ask Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former fixer and lawyer, would be about his motivations for cooperating with prosecutors. Markus believes it is crucial to understand why Cohen has decided to testify against Trump and discuss any potential deals or promises made in exchange for his cooperation. This information could impact how credible Cohen’s testimony is perceived to be in court.
Markus notes that Cohen’s credibility will be a key factor in determining the success of his testimony in the Manhattan district attorney’s case against Trump. As a witness, Cohen must be seen as reliable and truthful in order to convince the jury of his account of events. Any inconsistencies or contradictions in his statements could weaken his credibility and cast doubt on the validity of his testimony.
The discussion between CNN’s Zachary Cohen and Markus delves into the potential legal implications for Trump if Cohen’s testimony proves to be truthful and damaging. Markus suggests that if Cohen can provide concrete evidence of criminal activity or unethical behavior by Trump, it could result in serious legal consequences for the former president. However, Markus also acknowledges that it can be difficult to prove criminal intent in such cases, making it challenging to secure a conviction against a high-profile figure like Trump.
Markus points out that Cohen’s credibility as a witness could be called into question by Trump’s defense team, who will likely scrutinize his past actions and statements in an attempt to discredit him. Additionally, the defense may challenge the validity of any evidence presented by Cohen, raising doubts about the accuracy and reliability of his testimony. Markus emphasizes the importance of establishing a clear narrative and timeline of events to support Cohen’s testimony and counter any attempts to undermine his credibility.
The impact of Cohen’s testimony on the public perception of Trump and his administration is also discussed. Markus suggests that the public’s perception of Trump could be influenced by the revelations and allegations made by Cohen, potentially damaging Trump’s reputation and credibility. If Cohen’s testimony highlights any criminal or unethical behavior by Trump, it could further erode public trust in the former president and have lasting implications on his legacy.
In conclusion, Markus emphasizes the importance of thoroughly investigating and preparing for Cohen’s testimony to ensure its credibility and effectiveness in court. By addressing potential challenges to Cohen’s credibility and presenting a compelling narrative supported by evidence, prosecutors can strengthen their case against Trump and increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. Ultimately, the outcome of the Manhattan district attorney’s case will depend on the strength of Cohen’s testimony and the evidence presented to support it.
