Michael Cohen's "Blistering" Cross-Examination Leaves Jurors Sceptical

Fox News host Jesse Watters analysed Michael Cohen's damaging cross-examination in New York v. Trump, arguing that Cohen's credibility as the prosecution's star witness was severely undermined.

In a blistering cross-examination that left many jurors questioning his credibility, Michael Cohen, former attorney to former President Trump, admitted to lying about Trump's involvement in hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Fox News host Jesse Watters, analysing the proceedings on "Jesse Watters Primetime," argued that Cohen's testimony was "a disaster for the prosecution."

"Imagine being a juror listening, and realize you just spent your whole month away from work, away from your family to listen to a case in which the star witness is exposed as a fanatic, seeking revenge on the defendant," Watters said.

The defence team relentlessly pursued inconsistencies in Cohen's testimony, exposing numerous discrepancies. Cohen initially denied asking for a presidential pardon, only for the defence to present a deposition in which he did just that.

"The whole courtroom just shook their heads," Watters said.

The defence also portrayed Cohen as a jilted lawyer, passed over for White House chief of staff and struggling to obtain inauguration tickets. Cohen admitted under oath to harbouring a "personal vendetta" against Trump.

Watters drew attention to the testimony of Cohen's former lawyer, who claimed that Cohen never possessed incriminating evidence against Trump.

"If Cohen had dirt on Donald, he would have handed it to the feds on a silver platter to stay out of prison," the lawyer said.

Jurors' confidence in Cohen's credibility has reportedly waned, with many expressing reservations about his reliability as a witness.

"This cross-examination has raised serious doubts about Cohen's motives and the accuracy of his testimony," Watters added.

Cohen's cross-examination has thrown a wrench into the prosecution's case, leaving jurors sceptical about the credibility of their star witness and potentially weakening the prosecution's ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.