"Michael Cohen's testimony delivers Donald Trump's most favorable outcome yet in hush money trial"

"Donald Trump experienced a favorable outcome in court at last."

"The expected GOP nominee has frequently appeared ashamed and enraged by his initial criminal trial, marked by scandalous revelations about his personal life and accounts of purported efforts to conceal it."

However, on Thursday, he relished seeing his former fixer-turned-foe, Michael Cohen, stumble on the stand during a rigorous cross-examination. Cohen seemed to falter over his previous testimony regarding a call he had claimed, under oath, was about discussing Trump's hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. It was revealed during questioning on Thursday that, initially, the call was about a different matter altogether.

This inconsistency provides Trump's attorneys with ammunition to cast doubt on Cohen's honesty and reliability, potentially swaying the opinion of a single juror. Such doubt could be enough for Trump to be acquitted. As the prosecution prepares for Cohen's redirect examination next week following the conclusion of cross-examination, they face a significant challenge in repairing the damage. Ryan Goodman, a professor at NYU Law, commented to CNN's Erin Burnett, "I think what occurred today remains so damaging that they must take action. If the trial concluded today with final statements, I doubt there would be a conviction."

After a day supported by another group of GOP lawmakers, including Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump left court feeling content. "I think it was a very intriguing day, it was quite fascinating. And it exposes the fraudulent nature of this entire ordeal," the former president remarked. His exaggerated interpretation and distinct perspective on the proceedings seemed less empty than usual, particularly given several favorable moments for the defense during what has predominantly been a challenging month for Trump in the courtroom.

Another day of testimony from Cohen, the prosecution's key witness, arrived as the case approached its climax, with the judge advising lawyers to prepare for summations as early as Tuesday. This suggests that the jury could potentially begin deliberating on its verdict shortly after Memorial Day, in what marks the first criminal trial involving a former president, and just five months before Trump aims to return to the White House.

"A critical juncture"

During the last session of the week on Tuesday, Trump's attorney Todd Blanche encountered what most legal experts perceived as a challenging day as he began his cross-examination of Cohen. However, he made a significant recovery on Thursday.

Blanche initially focused on undermining Cohen's credibility. He emphasized the former Trump fixer's well-documented history of deceit, both on behalf of his former boss and personally. Through text messages and social media posts, he demonstrated Cohen's animosity towards Trump and his desire to see the ex-president convicted. This case alleges Trump's falsification of financial records to conceal a 2016 payoff, marking an early instance of election interference (Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied the affair with Daniels).

Then, in one of the trial's most gripping moments, Blanche delved into a call Cohen made to his boss' bodyguard, Keith Schiller, who was with Trump on October 24, 2016. Cohen had previously testified that the purpose of the call was to discuss "the Stormy Daniels matter and its resolution." However, Blanche presented a text from Cohen to Schiller before the call, in which the lawyer mentioned seeking assistance with a 14-year-old who was prank calling him. Notably, Daniels was not mentioned in the text preceding the conversation, which lasted only 96 seconds.

"That's a falsehood!" Blanche exclaimed, raising his voice. "You did not speak to President Trump that night, you spoke to Keith Schiller. ... You can acknowledge that." Blanche contended that it was implausible for Cohen to have had enough time to discuss the prank calls and then proceed to update Trump about the intricate situation involving Daniels.

Cohen maintained, "I am certain I also conversed with President Trump and informed him that everything concerning the Stormy Daniels matter was being addressed and would be resolved."

Blanche then employed a pointed rhetorical tactic, informing Cohen, "We're not interested in your beliefs—this jury isn't concerned with your interpretations." Judge Juan Merchan promptly sustained an objection from the prosecution to the statement, but Trump's lawyer had effectively conveyed his message.

The exchange was particularly notable because, despite numerous days of testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution to support allegations that Trump violated the law, the case still heavily relies on Cohen. Cohen, a convicted felon with a documented history of dishonesty, remains a central figure in the case.

As the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt, this exchange could heighten the likelihood of at least one juror questioning Cohen's account of events. Moreover, it opens the door for jurors to consider the possibility that they were misled by Cohen earlier in the trial. If such doubts emerge among jurors, who have dedicated significant time to hear the case, it could spell trouble for the prosecution.

"A setback"

It's uncertain how individual jurors will evaluate the evidence and conflicting testimonies. However, seasoned trial attorneys quickly recognized a possible pivotal moment. Criminal defense attorney Nikki Lotze remarked on CNN's "The Situation Room" regarding Blanche's confrontation with Cohen, "I believe it must have instigated some doubt. Earlier testimony indicated that this phone call was about X, but now there are texts suggesting it concerns Y ... and there wasn't much time for a discussion about both X and Y."

Jim Trusty, a former attorney for Trump, also viewed the exchange as significant and reason for the former president to be optimistic. "The defense strategically positioned the entire trial as a test of Cohen's credibility. This is precisely the battleground you want, so it's a positive development," he stated.

Once Blanche concludes his cross-examination of Cohen, the prosecution will have an opportunity to address any potential damage stemming from one of the trial's most pivotal moments thus far. While some experts noted that this incident was just a minor setback compared to a wealth of evidence, much of which poses potential challenges for Trump.

Norm Eisen acknowledged that Blanche's apparent challenge to Cohen was effective legal maneuvering by the defense, but he contested the notion that the incident was crippling to the prosecution's case. "It was a setback," Eisen informed CNN's Anderson Cooper. "In my 30 years of experience, it takes more than one setback to discredit a witness." Conservative lawyer and vocal Trump critic George Conway, present in court on Thursday, remarked to CNN that although Blanche had some favorable moments, much of his cross-examination appeared "disjointed" and lacking in coherence, failing to establish a compelling narrative.

Yet, amidst the more subdued moments of Thursday's testimony, another instance may provide the defense with a robust opportunity in their closing argument to the jury. Blanche inquired of Cohen about a time when he admitted to lying under oath to a judge in a separate case due to personal ramifications. Cohen conceded that he had indeed done so.

Blanche then questioned Cohen: "Does the result of this trial have personal implications for you?" Cohen replied, "Yes." The implicit suggestion here is that if Cohen was willing to lie in a previous trial that had personal significance for him, why wouldn't he do the same in a trial involving his current adversary, the former president?

Once more, the defense isn't required to establish that Cohen is lying. It simply needs to create doubt in the mind of one juror about the possibility of falsehood—thus rendering a unanimous conviction unattainable.

In numerous prosecutions, witnesses with questionable credibility and evident bias against the accused are frequently utilized—such as in organized crime trials, where subordinate members are leveraged to implicate higher-ranking figures despite their own legal shortcomings. Therefore, Cohen's difficulties during a crucial juncture on Thursday do not automatically indicate that this case is in jeopardy.

However, everyone involved in the trial was aware prior to its commencement that Cohen's central role in this case posed a significant risk for the prosecution. The enormity of that gamble became evident in court on Thursday.