Cohen Reappears, and the Case Gets Awkward
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against President Trump is back under a bright light after an unusual radio moment involving Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and Bragg’s key witness. Cohen hosted Trump on his WABC radio show and asked him to look back to 2016, including Cohen’s old CNN exchange where he answered bad polling claims with “Says who?” Trump later told Cohen, “I respect the fact that you recanted everything you said.” Cohen answered, “Yeah.” For a prosecution that leaned hard on Cohen’s credibility, that is not a small wrinkle. It is more like finding a raccoon in the evidence room.
Honig Spells Out the Problem on CNN
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig told Jake Tapper that supporters of the hush money prosecution have “nothing left to stand on.” Honig said prosecutors before Bragg, including the Biden DOJ and the prior Democratic district attorney, did not bring the case because they did not trust Cohen beyond a reasonable doubt. He then pointed to Cohen’s public claim that he “felt pressured and coerced by prosecutors.” Honig framed the problem simply: if Cohen is telling the truth, then prosecutors pressured him, which is unacceptable. If Cohen is lying, then the case was built on a liar. That is not exactly the kind of menu a prosecutor wants to hand an appeals court.
The Legal Theory Was Always Doing Gymnastics
The Manhattan case involved 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The source article notes that falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor with a two-year statute of limitations, which had already passed by the time the 2023 indictment was issued. Bragg elevated the charges to felonies by arguing the records were falsified with intent to commit or conceal another crime. The alleged other crime involved state election law, while a related federal matter had already been reviewed without charges. That “novel legal theory” was the load-bearing wall of the case. In politics and law, “novel” often means “please do not look too closely at the plumbing.”
Judge Merchan’s Rulings Are Part of the Appeal Fight
The source article also points to trial limits placed by Judge Juan Merchan on testimony from Bradley Smith, a former FEC chairman and Ohio State University law professor. Smith was restricted from giving opinions on whether Trump’s specific actions violated federal election law or whether the conduct was legal. The article further states that Merchan’s daughter ran a fundraising organization that raised money for Democratic candidates off the prosecution of Trump. Those issues are part of why critics say the trial’s structure deserves close review, especially when the prosecution’s theory depended on an uncharged second crime that Trump’s defense did not directly litigate in the usual way.
The Appeal Now Has a Cohen-Sized Problem
According to the source article, the case is currently on appeal in the New York Appellate Division, First Department. Honig said the appeal has been moving very slowly and that he sees “major legal infirmities” in the case. His larger point was that the factual basis may now be collapsing too, because Cohen was central to the prosecution. President Trump shared the CNN segment, along with a post from Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York saying Honig believed Cohen’s latest statements “demolish the factual basis” of the prosecution and conviction. For the crowd that built a cathedral on “convicted felon,” the foundation may be getting a little squishy.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
Leave a Comment