Trump trial in disarray following Michael Cohen’s ‘otherworldly’ testimony

The trial of Michael Cohen’s testimony has severely damaged the prosecution of Donald Trump.

During the last day of cross-examination, Cohen confessed to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from his client, constituting larceny.

What’s even more significant is that he admitted this larceny on the stand after the statute of limitations had expired. This means that Cohen won’t face any criminal charges for this theft, unlike what happened to Trump.

Cohen seems to have embraced his role as a convicted and disbarred serial perjurer, finding comfort in it.

This isn’t the first time prosecutors have looked past Cohen’s major criminal activities. In another case, Cohen admitted under oath to lying, even after pleading guilty to lying previously.

It’s clear that Cohen only speaks the truth when he has no other choice.

The whole situation is strange. A disbarred lawyer openly admitting to criminal acts and lies while prosecutors fail to pursue further charges against him.

If any of the jurors had committed the same acts as Cohen, they would have faced immediate legal consequences.

Yet, Cohen nonchalantly mentions his plans to run for Congress due to his existing fame, regardless of its tainted nature.

As a congressman, Cohen could claim immunity to corruption, having already arrived at Congress with a criminal record.

While most legislators wait till they take office to commit felonies, Cohen would be breaking that norm by arriving with a self-affirmed criminal background.

In the end, Cohen serves more as a diversion for prosecutors, distracting from the major gaps in their case against Trump.

Prior witnesses indicated that Trump’s payments to Cohen were categorized as “legal expenses” by Trump’s accounting staff, not by Trump himself.

Cohen, who worked as a fixer for Trump, received approval for these payments from Allen Weisselberg, a retired executive from the Trump Organization.

Calling these payments a “legal expense” was fitting for a lawyer who worked as Trump’s personal counsel and was paid monthly for his services.

In any other jurisdiction, this case probably wouldn’t have made it to trial and should have resulted in a directed verdict by now.

However, Judge Juan Merchan seems to favor the prosecution in his rulings, leaving some bewildered.

Despite the lack of evidence, Judge Merchan shows no signs of considering a directed verdict, which he should grant before the trial goes to the jury.

His rulings heavily favor the prosecution, including allowing references to non-existent campaign finance violations to be heard by the jury.

Despite these challenges, the defense is facing an uphill battle, mainly due to the judge’s bias towards the prosecution.

Follow The Post’s live blog for the latest updates on Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial

All Merchan offered was a weak instruction advising jurors not to consider statements as proof of a violation.

The alleged campaign finance violations allowed Cohen to try and implicate Trump, although proving his guilt on such charges would be challenging in any other venue.

The Justice Department previously attempted and failed to convict John Edwards on similar charges, leading to the abandonment of the theory of hush money as a campaign contribution.

Despite reviewing Trump’s payments, the Justice Department declined to file charges, and the Federal Election Commission didn’t even impose a civil fine.

During Costello’s testimony, Judge Merchan’s decisions became even more puzzling when Costello accused Cohen of multiple acts of perjury.

The courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan is turning out to be anything but ordinary.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.