Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, provided testimony on Monday that could potentially dismantle the prosecution’s narrative in the Manhattan District Attorney’s high-profile case against the former president. Cohen’s admission in court suggested that Trump was not overly concerned about the Stormy Daniels story, challenging the foundational claims of the case.
Cohen, once a close confidant and legal counsel to Trump, has been a central figure in the legal saga involving hush money payments allegedly made to silence Daniels, the porn star claiming the encounter with Trump in 2006. The payments so far have been portrayed by the prosecution as a desperate attempt by Trump to prevent damaging information from derailing his 2016 presidential campaign. However, Cohen’s recent testimony paints a different picture, indicating that Trump viewed the allegations as irrelevant to his campaign’s outcome.
Cohen said that Trump didn’t care about the story being embarrassing, suggesting that Trump was confident the story would hold no weight if he won the election. This could critically impact the prosecution’s case, which hinges on proving that Trump actively engaged in a cover-up to influence the election results.
According to Cohen, the former president’s main concern was not the exposure of the affair itself but rather the potential campaign repercussions. He testified that Trump said, “If I win, it won’t have any relevance. If I lose, I don’t really care.”
In 2016, Daniels claimed that she had an affair with Trump in 2006 and alleged that she was paid $130,000 in hush money by Trump’s then-lawyer shortly before the 2016 election to keep the story from going public. The narrative that Trump was deeply concerned about the potential fallout from the Daniels story has been a cornerstone of discussions surrounding the hush money payment. It was believed that Trump wanted to avoid any scandal that could negatively impact his presidential campaign, which led to the arrangement with Cohen.
However, Cohen’s claim that Trump was unconcerned undermines the rationale that the payment was made out of fear of political damage in the 2016 election. If Trump truly didn’t care about the story, it calls into question the motivations behind the hush money and the narrative that it was a desperate attempt to protect his candidacy.
Further complicating the prosecution’s case is the timing of the payments to Cohen, which were made after the election, contradicting the claim that they were intended to manipulate the electoral process. These payments, described by Cohen as compensation for legal fees, now appear more as a post-election aftermath handling rather than a premeditated scheme to sway voters.
Cohen’s credibility is likely to be a major focus as the case progresses. His legal history includes a conviction for lying to Congress among other charges, which Trump’s defense team is expected to leverage to undermine his reliability as a witness. Trump’s lawyers argue that Cohen’s testimony is inconsistent and motivated by personal grievances against Trump.
If the jury perceives these payments as unrelated to the election, it could substantially weaken the case against Trump. Legal analysts suggest that proving electoral influence requires a clear link between the intent of the payments and the election outcome—a link that Cohen’s testimony now calls into question. The prosecution will aim to establish a pattern of behavior that aligns with their charges, while the defense is expected to continue highlighting inconsistencies and questioning motives.
