The cross-examination of Michael Cohen, the former president's former personal attorney, continued with Todd Blanche handling the cross-examination. Noted defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh, provided insights on the proceedings.
Blanche aimed to showcase Cohen's animosity towards his former boss, emphasizing the lack of personal stake Cohen should have in a case involving falsification of documents. Eiglarsh highlighted Cohen's history of feeling wronged and his bias against Trump.
Eiglarsh dismissed the notion of a dramatic confession akin to a TV show, emphasizing the need for corroborating evidence due to Cohen's credibility issues. He pointed out that Cohen's claims of receiving money illegally lacked substantial corroboration, with the only potential corroborator, Allen Weisselberg, not testifying.
The prosecution's case relied heavily on Cohen's testimony regarding fraudulent invoices and unpaid services. However, Eiglarsh stressed the importance of corroboration and reasonable doubt in assessing Cohen's claims.
During the cross-examination, Cohen admitted to expressing a desire to see Trump convicted, further underscoring his bias. Eiglarsh concluded that Cohen's lack of neutrality made him an unreliable witness.
In summary, Eiglarsh's analysis suggested that Cohen's credibility issues and bias undermined the prosecution's case. Without substantial corroboration, Cohen's testimony alone may not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
