Day two of Michael Cohen's testimony has concluded, and retired U.S. District Court Judge Shira Shendland offers insights on the proceedings. Judge Shendland notes that Todd Blanche's cross-examination of Cohen focused on undermining his credibility by repeatedly labeling him as a liar with a motive to target Trump. While the cross-examination appeared disjointed and challenging to follow, it served the purpose of casting doubt on Cohen's testimony.
Regarding the prosecution's decision to end their case with Cohen, Judge Shendland believes it was strategic to have a firsthand witness to corroborate events and statements involving President Trump. However, she acknowledges that the jury must rely solely on Cohen's account of the interactions, as there were no other witnesses present during the meetings he described.
Commenting on the presence of political figures like Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and other VIPs at the courthouse, Judge Shendland believes their influence on the jury is minimal, as the jurors may not recognize them. However, she finds it inappropriate for such individuals to attend the trial and express opinions that could potentially sway perceptions.
Addressing the absence of key witness Allen Weisselberg, who played a significant role in a crucial document related to the case, Judge Shendland anticipates the defense emphasizing the prosecution's failure to call him as a witness. The defense is likely to exploit this gap in testimony during their summation.
Regarding the prosecution's case, Judge Shendland opines that while the misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records has been convincingly proven, establishing the felony charge related to election interference poses a greater challenge. Cohen's testimony linking Trump's actions to a deliberate intent to conceal information before the election strengthens the prosecution's argument, but the jury's belief in Trump's alleged statements will be pivotal in determining the outcome.
