Cohen testified that Trump personally directed him to make a hush-money payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels in October 2016.
Michael Cohen testified in Manhattan criminal trial against Donald Trump on May 13, 2024.
The payment was made to prevent Daniels' allegations of an extramarital affair from becoming public before the presidential election.
In a dramatic turn of events, Michael Cohen, former lawyer and fixer for Donald Trump, took the stand in Manhattan's criminal trial against the former president on May 13, 2024. Cohen testified that Trump personally directed him to make a hush-money payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 to prevent her allegations of an extramarital affair from becoming public before the presidential election (The New York Times,
Cohen arranged the alleged hush-money payment to Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election to keep her allegations from becoming public.
Trump was ‘really angry’ with Cohen when he learned about the payment.
Cohen testified that Trump directed him to ‘just take care of it’, reasoning that it would hurt the campaign’s chances with women voters.
Accuracy
Michael Cohen testified that Donald Trump personally directed him to pay off Stormy Daniels in 2016
Trump approved a reimbursement plan for the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels after he became president-elect
Cohen described his relationship with Trump as one where he did ‘dirty work’ and ‘buried secrets’
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. For example, the article focuses on Michael Cohen's testimony against former President Trump in his criminal trial and how he is the star witness for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. However, it does not mention any contradictory evidence or testimony that may exist. Additionally, there are emotional manipulations used throughout the article to elicit a strong reaction from readers. For instance, phrases like 'total disaster' and 'catastrophic' are used to describe the situation surrounding Trump and Daniels' alleged hush money payment.
The former president is on trial for 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
Cohen recalled Trump telling him: "I thought you had this under control, I thought you took care of this."
Cohen described to the court that Daniels‗ claims would have been "catastrophic to Mr. Trump and the campaign" if he did not take control of the situation and iron out the NDA and payment to Daniels.
The ex-Trump attorney testified that he spoke with Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg about how to fund the payment.
Cohen testified that in October 2016, he told Trump that Daniels must be paid to quiet her claims ahead of Election Day the following month.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes several appeals to authority by reporting on the testimony of Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg without explicitly stating whether she agrees or disagrees with their statements. She also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the payment to Stormy Daniels as 'hush-money' and implying that it was an attempt to cover up an affair. However, these are not fallacies as they do not directly affect the author's arguments or assertions.
][The author] reports on Michael Cohen testifying that Trump directed him to 'just take care of it,' reasoning that it would hurt the campaign's chances with women voters.[/]
[[]The author describes the payment to Stormy Daniels as 'hush-money' without providing any evidence or argument as to why this is a fallacy or an issue.[/
Cohen testified that Trump instructed him several times to keep stories about extramarital affairs out of the media during his presidential campaign.
Cohen arranged the alleged hush-money payment to Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election to keep her allegations from becoming public.
Accuracy
Michael Cohen testified that Trump instructed him several times to keep stories about extramarital affairs out of the media during his presidential campaign.
Trump could be an unpopular witness due to Cohen’s controversial past and his own criminal charges.
Trump was ‘really angry’ with Cohen when he learned about the payment.
Cohen testified that Trump directed him to ‘just take care of it’, reasoning that it would hurt the campaign’s chances with women voters.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The author makes several statements about the ongoing trial and Michael Cohen's testimony without committing any logical fallacies. The author also provides context about Trump's standing in the polls and other criminal cases, but these statements do not contain any fallacies either. However, there is one instance of an appeal to authority when the author states that 'Cohen's testimony is seen as crucial to the prosecution case.' This statement implies that others hold this belief and therefore it must be true, but it does not provide any evidence or reasoning for why Cohen's testimony is indeed crucial. Therefore, I can only give a score of 95.
'Cohen's testimony is seen as crucial to the prosecution case.'
Cohen testified that Donald Trump personally directed him to pay off Stormy Daniels in 2016 (not in other articles)
Cohen recalled Trump’s instructions to ‘just get past the election’ when negotiating a deal with Daniels (not directly contradicted but not mentioned in other articles)
Accuracy
Cohen recalled Trump's instructions to 'just get past the election' when negotiating a deal with Daniels.
Cohen testified that Trump personally directed him to pay off Stormy Daniels in 2016.
Prosecutors need the 12 jurors to trust Cohen and his account of the meeting as there is limited direct evidence in the case.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author focuses on the 'reinvention' of Michael Cohen during his testimony, implying that this is a new and unexpected development. However, they fail to mention that Cohen had previously displayed a more measured temperament during his congressional testimony in 2019. This selective reporting creates a false narrative and manipulates the reader's emotions by presenting the testimony as an unprecedented event when it is not. Additionally, the author uses emotional language such as 'fire-breathing,' 'expletive-laden fury,' and 'uncharacteristic modesty' to manipulate readers' emotions.
But it is also a tricky piece of evidence for prosecutors, because the jury may need to rely solely on Cohen’s account of it. That means prosecutors need the 12 jurors to trust Cohen, and Cohen alone, on what really happened in that meeting in which a significant chapter of the cover-up was purportedly written.
That is a critical piece of testimony because the alleged reimbursement scheme and records related to it are at the crux of the 34 felony charges against Trump. Prosecutors say that Trump, while reimbursing Cohen, falsified the reimbursement as a series of legal expenses in violation of New York law.
Just days before Trump took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2017, Cohen said, the three of them assembled in Trump’s corporate office. There, with Trump looking on, Cohen said Weisselberg outlined a plan to pay Cohen back in monthly installments for the money he had shelled out to suppress Daniels’ story – as well as some other costs Cohen had incurred – and then nearly doubled it to cover Cohen’s tax liability as well.
In his fury, Cohen said, he confronted Weisselberg. “I actually did a double take and then immediately went to Mr. Weisselberg’s office in the back and in some uncolorful language expressed to him how truly pissed off and angry I really was.”
For nearly six hours, Michael Cohen displayed uncharacteristic modesty, dispassion and a measured temperament, while acknowledging former bouts of anger, bullying, lying and egotism.
For example, he recalled seething when he was told Trump would not consider him to be his White House chief of staff in 2017.
Despite Cohen’s mild demeanor on the witness stand, he did offer some tantalizing pieces of testimony.
And most significantly, Cohen acknowledged becoming incensed when at the end of 2016 – a year in which Cohen orchestrated deals to silence at least two women from disclosing extramarital affairs with Trump and even fronted $130,000 of his own money to cover the payment to Daniels – he received a bonus check that was slashed by two-thirds from the year before. And Trump hadn’t even paid back the $130,000 yet.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Michael Cohen as a 'fire-breathing fixer' and 'social media resistance hero'. This is an appeal to emotion and can be considered an informal fallacy. The author also makes dichotomous depictions of Cohen by presenting him as having two distinct personalities: the bullying, expletive-laden one and the mild-mannered, self-deprecating one. This can be considered a logical fallacy as it oversimplifies Cohen's character.
The world has long known two Michael Cohens... There’s the fire-breathing ‘fixer’ who famously bullied Donald Trump’s foes.
And there’s the social media resistance hero he became after breaking with his former boss, lobbing insults at Trump with the same expletive-laden fury he used to reserve for Trump’s enemies.
