‘Beyond thin skinned, rude’: Andrew Weissmann tears into Trump’s defense team’s performance

Summary

The video script centers around a legal analysis of a high-profile case involving Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen. Legal experts discuss the performance of both the prosecutor and the defense, highlighting the challenges faced by high-profile witnesses and the impact of the intense media spotlight. The discussion delves into the strategy used by the defense attorney, Todd Blanch, who is an experienced prosecutor rather than a defense lawyer, and the potential implications of his approach on the jury. The conversation also touches on the personal and emotional aspects of the case, including Cohen's apparent regret for his actions and the human element that emerged during his testimony. The summary underscores the complexity of the legal proceedings, the strategic choices made by the legal teams, and the human side of the individuals involved.

Takeaways

• 📚 The discussion revolves around the legal case involving Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, highlighting the challenges and dynamics of high-profile cases.
• 🤔 There is a debate over the effectiveness of cross-examination, with some legal experts suggesting Stormy Daniels performed better under cross.
• 👀 The spotlight on high-profile cases can amplify the flaws of individuals involved, including the witness and the prosecutor.
• 🗣️ Michael Cohen's testimony under oath is noted to be different from his usual demeanor, indicating the seriousness of the situation.
• 👥 The choice of Todd Blanch as a defense attorney is questioned, given his experience as a prosecutor rather than a defense lawyer.
• 🚫 The defense's opening remarks are criticized for being confrontational and likely to incur objections from the judge.
• 🧐 There is a suggestion that the defense's approach may be misleading or taking liberties with the facts, which could impact credibility.
• 😴 Observations are made about Donald Trump's behavior in court, including his eyes being shut for extended periods, interpreted as an act of defiance.
• 🔍 Jeff Sessions' recusal from campaign-related matters is mentioned, with Cohen's testimony suggesting a cover-up unrelated to Russia.
• 🤝 Cohen's testimony implies that Donald Trump assured him that the Justice Department would be on their side, indicating a potential abuse of power.
• 💔 Michael Cohen expressed regret for his actions, particularly for lying and bullying on behalf of Donald Trump, showing a human side to his testimony.

Q & A

Why was Stormy Daniels mentioned as performing better on cross-examination?

The discussion highlights that some legal experts and friends viewed Stormy Daniels as performing well during cross-examination in a high-profile legal case. This suggests she was effective in handling the pressure and questions, which sometimes can make or break a witness's credibility in court.

What challenges do high-profile cases pose for both prosecutors and witnesses?

High-profile cases can amplify the flaws of those involved due to the intense scrutiny and pressure. For witnesses, dealing with personal issues publicly can be daunting, and for prosecutors, every minor mistake is magnified under the public and media spotlight.

How does Susan Necheles' approach in cross-examining Stormy Daniels affect Daniels' testimony?

Susan Necheles' strategy in cross-examining Stormy Daniels was perceived as dehumanizing, which paradoxically may have made Daniels more comfortable and thus more effective in her responses. This approach allowed Daniels to present herself authentically, potentially resonating better with the jury.

What is the significance of Michael Cohen's performance as described in the transcript?

Michael Cohen's performance in court is highlighted as 'remarkably good,' indicating that he adapted well to the courtroom environment and was effective in communicating under oath. His ability to present himself distinctly in court compared to other situations underscores the transformational nature of legal testimony.

What issues did the inexperienced defense lawyer face in the transcript?

The inexperienced defense lawyer faced criticism for not being able to present clear, thematic arguments to the jury, which is crucial in defense. His performance, marked by objections from the judge, indicates a struggle in adapting prosecutorial skills to a defense context.

How does Donald Trump's focus on appearances influence his choice of lawyers, according to the discussion?

Donald Trump values lawyers who fit a particular image and perform in a way that he sees as effective, regardless of their legal acumen. This is exemplified by his preference for lawyers who 'look the part,' indicating that appearances and public perception play significant roles in his decision-making.

What does the transcript suggest about Donald Trump's influence over Jeff Sessions in relation to legal issues not directly related to Russia?

The transcript implies that Donald Trump expected Jeff Sessions to support him broadly, beyond just the Russia investigation, including managing other legal challenges and cover-ups, as indicated by the assertion that Sessions would 'take care of Pecker,' which was unrelated to the Russia case.

How does Michael Cohen's behavior in court, particularly his closing his eyes, function as an act of defiance?

Michael Cohen's act of frequently closing his eyes during court proceedings is interpreted as a form of defiance or disengagement from the process, a non-verbal way of expressing his disregard or dissatisfaction with the proceedings, despite being physically present.

What is the significance of the emotional aspect of Michael Cohen's testimony as discussed in the transcript?

The emotional aspect of Michael Cohen's testimony, where he expresses regret for his actions, serves to humanize him before the jury. This portrayal of genuine remorse might influence the jury's perception of his credibility and reliability as a witness.

How does the transcript distinguish between being credible in recounting experiences and being credible about personal motivations?

The transcript differentiates these aspects by suggesting that a person can be reliable in discussing their experiences and interactions, yet still struggle with self-awareness or honesty regarding their motives. This highlights the complexity of assessing a witness's overall credibility.