Turley: Michael Cohen Is the ‘Most Compromised, Unbelievable Witness in the History of the Federal Legal System’

WATTERS: “Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley joins us now. Jonathan, what does this mean?”
TURLEY: “Well, it means what we already know. That Michael Cohen is the most compromised, unbelievable witness in the history of the federal legal system. That is hardly news. What we saw in his cross-examination was an evasive and rehearsed set of answers. And he will likely continue that tomorrow. But here you have his own lawyer now saying that what he said on the stand is diametrically opposed to what he told him in an attorney-client confidential setting. Now, we already flagged parts of the testimony of Cohen that did not seem to ring true. For example, Cohen said that he surreptitiously taped the former president for his protection, to keep David Pecker honest. That makes no sense at all. No one can make any sense out of how taping Donald Trump would somehow affect David Pecker. In fact, the call itself seemed to indicate that Trump had very little information about the deals that had been arranged by Cohen. It seems clear to most of us that he was banking insurance against Trump, that this was to be compromising information that he might use later. And that would be completely consistent with Michael Cohen. The only consistent element in Cohen’s career is that he will only tell the truth if he has no alternative, and he always acts for his own best interest.”
WATTERS: “So does the defense call his ex-lawyer to the stand and just blows Cohen’s whole testimony up?”
TURLEY: “Well, that would be something, wouldn’t it? You would just have the president’s formal council testifying against him, and then have his former counsel’s former counsel testifying against him. At some point, it’s going to get awfully strange. No, I don’t think that they will. Look, think there’s a strong temptation to just rest. I don’t think they have presented the elements of any crime. We still do not know what this other crime was that was being concealed by Trump. But they also have not put into evidence any clear support for saying that listing these payments as legal expenses was somehow fraud or wrong. Many experts are saying, ‘No, if you are paying your lawyer his fees and the costs that he put out there, most accountants would just list that as a legal expense because it’s going to your lawyer. So they haven’t put into play what is necessary, in my view, to get to the jury. But they may be tempted to put an expert on just to put a nail in this coffin. I can’t understand how any honest judge would allow this to go to a jury. You know, Judge Merchan is going to have his moment where he has to decide what he owes his commitment to, the rule of law or to something else. Because if he follows the rule of law, this would never go to a jury.”
WATTERS: “Well, we’ll find out soon. Big day tomorrow, Cohen cross-examined. What a week.”