During an appearance on FNC’s “Hannity” on Tuesday, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley reacted to testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, the star witness in a New York bookkeeping case brought against Donald Trump.
According to Turley, Cohen appeared to have perjured himself again during that testimony.
“Jonathan, let’s get your overall observations of the day — not exactly the most credible witness, to say the least,” host Sean Hannity said.
“No, not at all,” Turley replied. “And, indeed, one of the most impressive things about the last two days is it does appear that Cohen may have committed perjury again. You know, his explanations on various points do not strike some of us as true. You know, when he said that he surreptitiously taped the president, which just blasts away ethical obligations, he said he was doing that really to help Trump and to keep David Pecker honest. It makes no sense that — it’s just, no one can get their head around that. But that was just one of a number of moments where you really have to be impressed with this guy who really has shown throughout his life that he’ll only tell the truth if he has no alternative.”
He continued, “Now, what I think was the most amazing thing today is that the prosecutors said that they will close their case. They’ll rest their case after Cohen’s testimony is done. There’s only one problem: nobody has established the elements of any crime. The government has not even stated or explained why listing these payments as legal expenses is not correct. They haven’t put on any material evidence to support those elements. Most judges would be insulted for prosecutors to say, ‘Well, that’s a wrap,’ without ever making the basis for a case.”
“So, the judge is going to have this motion for a directed verdict, and I think any judge in good faith would grant that motion,” Turley added. “If he sends this to the jury, he is sending a case to a jury where no crime has been stated and even core factual issues remain very much in doubt. I still cannot figure out — not only what the crime was that brought to life this dead misdemeanor — I can’t figure out what the government’s arguing as to how this should have been denoted. If it wasn’t a legal expense, what’s the notation some accountant should have put in a ledger? None of us know because they just have shrugged. And that’s what this case is; it’s a shrug, and they expect the judge to do the same.”
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.