Michael Cohen's Testimony: 'Nothing New' or 'Incriminating Details'?

What impact did Michael Cohen’s testimony have on former President Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial?

For Context: Trump is currently facing trial in New York, where he is accused of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments made in the lead up to the 2016 election. This week, Trump’s former ‘fixer’ Michael Cohen testified that he helped organize these hush money payments.

From the Right: A writer in the New York Post Opinion (Right bias) argued that Cohen’s testimony offered “nothing new and, more importantly, nothing to make the case for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg,” stating that Cohen “only confirmed that Trump knew he was going to pay for the nondisclosure agreement and that it would be buried before the election,” not that Trump intentionally committed fraud. Casting doubt on the truth and reliability of Cohen’s testimony, the writer concluded the judge “should rule in favor of a directed verdict — that is, throwing the case out before it goes to a jury.”

From the Left: A writer in MSNBC (Left bias) argued Cohen’s testimony included “scores of incriminating details,” stating that “prosecutors took a hammer to the theory that Trump believed the checks were for legal services, deploying Cohen’s testimony to establish the tie between Trump and the false entries on the checks whose stubs said ‘Retainer.’” The writer concluded, “The result is enough evidence for the jury to conclude that Trump, Cohen and Weisselberg were co-conspirators in a criminal scheme to falsify documents.”