Former federal prosecutor pours cold water on MSNBC host's argument Michael Cohen will be a good witness

Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori countered MSNBC host Chris Jansing's argument that former President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen would be a beneficial witness for the prosecution.

Cohen, who has previously advocated guilty to lie to Congress and admit to lying under oath to a federal judge, he began his trial on Monday witness against Trump as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's star witness. After Khardori said Cohen would be a vulnerable witness, Jansing offered his “dissent,” but the former federal prosecutor claimed that was inaccurate and that Trump's lawyers would be prepared to attack him effectively.

I WILL SEE:

“You said, Ankush, that a good lawyer on a good day could take Cohen down,” host Ana Cabrera said. “He's a lawyer himself, but do you think he's an easy target?”

“He is a lawyer, but he is very bad,” Khardori replied. “So I think he's an exceptionally easy target and I think I'd bet everyone around the table sitting there with you would be chomping at the bit if they had the opportunity to cross Michael Cohen as a professional matter.”

Cabrera said Khardori's bet was correct as there were “nods” around the table. “Can I be the dissenting voice here, Ankush?” Jansing asked. “Here's my dissent. He was very well prepared for his testimony before Congress. There was a time, according to Lanny Davis, when he was preparing it. He got very, very angry, and Davis basically told him, already well, you just gave the Republicans everything they wanted. And from that moment on he was, I don't know if these are not Lanny's words, the ideal witness, but from that moment on he understood what he was in play”.

“The stakes before Congress are nothing compared to what's at stake here,” Jansing added. “What's at stake here is potentially whether you believe the polls, Ankush, the presidency of the United States, and whether or not anyone is going to vote for someone who's a convicted felon. The polls say they wouldn't. So it's just the fact that he is a damn liar that you think is too difficult to overcome or you are predicting that he will somehow lose it, not tell the story that he has told over and over and over again good lawyer to michael cohen who could make the case fall apart?

Cohen has often used social media to attack Trump, both before and during the trial. describing he in various Twitter posts as “VonShitzInpantz” and speaking live on TikTok about the case.

“I don't think it's insurmountable. I do not wish to pronounce a final verdict on the credibility of his testimony. It's running right now. I want to be very clear,” Khardori said. “But, yes, it's the concern about his temperament, it's not just his demonstrable prior history of lying, but the concern about his temperament and combativeness. The distinction between testifying before Congress and testifying in a hearing room here, I respect Lanny Davis's point, but they are totally different. In Congress, questioners are not professional lawyers, they don't have unlimited hours and time to develop lines of questioning and topics over time.”

“Many, many members of Congress are lawyers and they have many lawyers helping them prepare the questions,” Jansing countered.

David Pecker, former editor of the National Enquirer and first witness during the trial, agreed which Cohen was prone to exaggerate during his testimony.

“I don't want to be rude to people in Congress, they're not as good as professional criminal litigators at questioning people,” Khardori said. “That's just the reality, and I'm assuming that people around the table will share that assessment as well. And they're going to be facing something different than what they faced in Congress. These people have had months, months to pour out all the statements that he's done on social media, in his podcasts, and in his books. And you can bet a lot of that will come up on cross-examination. So, again, I don't want to disparage the people in Congress, but we have to be frank about it . That's a qualitative difference between the level and intensity of questioning in a criminal trial with experienced examiners and a lot of time and material at their disposal, compared to what happens in Congress.”

Latest messages from Jason Cohen (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.