Dan Goldman's Comments About Prepping Michael Cohen Cause a Stir

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

The hush money trial against former President Donald Trump hasn't been going well for the prosecution. 

As George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley explained, he doesn't think that the prosecution has made their case and believes Judge Juan Merchan should toss it before it goes to the jury. Now, that's if Merchan is judging based on the evidence presented, which remains to be seen. 

But the comments that Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) made about Cohen are causing a stir for different reasons. 

MSNBC's Willie Geist asked him if he thought that the prosecution had made their case. Goldman's response: 

“Well, I think it does remain to be seen, and that is the key. On the one hand, that is the technical legal requirement that they will have to prove. A lot of times in these trials, though, you know, the jury will want to make sure they check all the boxes, but the detailed defense is a tough one to make. I would echo what Claire said — and I have deposed Michael Cohen, I have met with him a number of times to prepare him — this was different testimony than what his demeanor was during the A.G.’s case. This is different than he has been in the past."

Some on the right are reacting to the "I have deposed Michael Cohen, I have met with him a number of times to prepare him," believing that he's talking about the present hush money trial. 

However, Goldman doesn't actually say that's what he was preparing him for and in context, he appears to be talking about something else in the past, although it's not clear what proceedings he's talking about here. Goldman questioned Michael Cohen under oath for a couple of days when he served as special counsel to the House Intelligence Committee. That may be what he's referencing when he mentions deposing him. Maybe the Republicans want to clarify what is being said here. 

But what Goldman does acknowledge here is the huge problem that the prosecution has with the case: They not only have to meet the legal requirements of the crimes alleged (which is certainly a question here) but they have a serious problem with Michael Cohen. 

Cohen is "an admitted perjurer, he is an admitted liar, he has testified inconsistently on the stand, so he is either lying one time or the other, and he will be really skewered on cross-examination for that," Goldman said. 

After acknowledging it, Goldman does try to put the best spin on the case he can, attacking Trump and saying he doesn't care about election law. That's nonsense, but you still have to prove a crime here, which they have so far failed to do.