Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.
We begin today with Philip Rotner writing for The Bulwark that Michael Cohen’s testimony in the Trump election interference case in lower Manhattan should be enough to support a conviction.
My reading of the transcript of Cohen’s testimony is that, credibility issues aside, he provided the testimony that closed the loop—but just barely.
Cohen testified that after a meeting with Weisselberg in which they agreed on a plan to falsely treat the reimbursements as payments for legal services, he and Weisselberg met with Trump at Trump Tower. Weisselberg told Cohen in Trump’s presence that “we’re going to pay you over 12 months.” Weisselberg said the payments would be made “like a legal service rendered.” Cohen testified that the payments were “designed to be” payment for future legal services but were actually “reimbursement of my money” paid to Daniels.
But Cohen didn’t quite make it clear that that was actually said in so many words during the meeting with Trump. Weisselberg showed Trump handwritten notes that roughly sketched out how the $130,000 reimbursement to Daniels would be doubled, “grossed up” because treating the payment as a legal expense rather than a reimbursement would require Cohen to pay taxes on it. Trump, Cohen says, “approved it.” [...]
If the jurors buy Cohen’s testimony, there’s more than enough evidence to support a conviction, but perhaps not enough to confidently predict one. Expect Trump’s attorneys to harp on the absence of a smoking gun in their closing argument, and to fault the prosecution for never having called the only witness who could theoretically corroborate Cohen’s testimony.
Read More