The eight hours Michael Cohen spent on Monday and Tuesday answering questions in the criminal case against Donald Trump unfolded as a carefully choreographed moment for both the former attorney and fixer and the prosecution, which has charged the former president with 34 counts related to falsifying documents to hide the payment made to silence Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. As anticipated, the tone shifted when Cohen faced tough cross-examination from Todd Blanche, the lead defense attorney, who pressed hard on his credibility and character.
The earliest questions concerned whether Cohen remembered being described in a TikTok post last month, after the trial began, as “a crying mess” and Trump as a “stupid dictator” who “belongs in a cage like an animal.” Cohen acknowledged the remark in both instances, drawing laughter from reporters and some smiles from jurors and a Trump attorney, underscoring the defense’s effort to paint him as dishonest and opportunistic, allegedly exploiting the historic case for personal gain while seeking revenge against Trump. Cohen argued that he would not have betrayed Trump for money, but the atmosphere remained tense as the cross-examination continued.
Cohen presented a serious, measured demeanor, sometimes combative but never overtly confrontational with Blanche. The defense’s strategy aimed to portray him as someone who has leveraged the case for personal profit, and perhaps for retribution against a figure he once idolized. The narrative built during cross-examination suggested Cohen’s past statements—shared in interviews, social media posts, and two books or podcasts—could be cited to cast doubt on his current testimony. The prosecution, however, has repeatedly reminded the jury of Cohen’s prior conduct, including contempt of Congress and tax issues, as part of the broader context.
Throughout the six-year arc of Cohen’s testimony against Trump, he has been a prolific storyteller about the case and the former boss he once revered. He described how the legal saga evolved and how his own loyalties shifted under pressure from prosecutors, which has been a central thread in the courtroom drama. The questions have frequently nudged him to acknowledge past public remarks and media appearances that the prosecution argues cloud the truth, while the defense suggests those remarks reveal a calculated attempt to shape events in Trump’s favor.
As the years have passed, Cohen’s public statements—whether in interviews, on social networks, or in publications—have complicated his narrative. The defense presses these points to suggest a pattern of behavior, while the prosecution cites them to highlight potential inconsistencies. The ongoing dialogue in the courtroom thus mirrors a broader debate about credibility, motive, and the limits of reliance on past statements when evaluating present testimony.
When asked about a pivotal moment in the late spring of 2018, Cohen recalled a phone call with Trump after federal agents seized his devices during a search in New York. According to Cohen, Trump tried to reassure him, telling him to stay strong and implying that everything would come out in due course. The president’s supportive messages also appeared in tweets, now known as X, providing a backdrop of political support that Cohen said helped him feel protected in the moment. Those exchanges, Cohen noted, marked a turning point in his decision to cooperate with authorities.
That direct line of communication was, Cohen indicated, the last time they spoke without intermediaries. Subsequent interactions went through intermediaries, including a lawyer with ties to Rudy Giuliani, who offered to act as a messenger. The dynamics of those channels raised questions about the best path forward for both sides and about the extent to which outside figures could influence the flow of information in a high-stakes case.
Ultimately, Cohen described a moment when he decided not to lie for Trump and to accept responsibility by pleading guilty to the charges he faced. He said that family concerns, including the loyalty owed to his wife and children, weighed heavily in his decision. In the days that followed, Trump publicly accused Cohen of breaking and fabricating stories to secure a deal with prosecutors, illustrating the ongoing rift between the former allies as the trial pressed toward its final phases.
Progress toward a close
Nobody can yet know which portrait of Cohen will most influence the seven men and five women on the jury, plus the six alternates who will decide Trump’s guilt or innocence. The moment of a verdict grows closer. The defense has indicated it expects to continue the cross-examination on Thursday, with no session on Wednesday and no session on Friday when Trump attends a family event. After that, the defense may present closing arguments as the prosecution has signaled it will rest its case. It remains to be seen whether the defense will call additional witnesses or the former president himself, though the latter remains unlikely. Looking ahead, the timeline suggests a brief wrap-up and deliberations in the near future, with the outcome hanging on how the jurors interpret the extensive testimony surrounding this case.