In a recent court hearing, the defense and prosecution presented contrasting views on the credibility of Michael Cohen's testimony in relation to the defendant's case. Joshua Steinglass, representing the defense, argued that Cohen's willingness to say anything to secure a conviction for the defendant undermines the reliability of his testimony. Steinglass also pointed out that even if Cohen's testimony is accepted, it may not be sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt.
On the other hand, the prosecutor countered these claims by suggesting that if Cohen were fabricating his testimony, he could have implicated the defendant in more serious illegal activities. This argument implies that Cohen's testimony may not be as damning as the defense portrays it to be.
