Two former Watergate prosecutors explained why they found Michael Cohen’s public testimony to be credible during a Wednesday evening appearance on MSNBC’s “All In” with Chris Hayes.
MSNBC legal analysts Jill Wine-Banks and Nick Akerman joined the host to dissect Cohen’s testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“I found him to be a credible and calm witness,” Wine-Banks said. “Maybe I was surprised how calm he remained under constant deluge of attacks.”
“I was a little surprised by how much documentation he had. When John Dean testified during Watergate he was all uncorroborated. We all now think about how he was corroborated by the tapes, but he didn’t know that there were any tapes at the time he testified,” she recalled. “He testified simply from memory and in this case we had actual documents”
Ackerman agreed on Cohen credibility.
“I think the big issue is his credibility and I think he was extremely credibility,” Ackerman said.
“I was personally surprised by how credible and calm he seemed,” Hayes interjected.
“I think, going to his credibility, one of the things that said to me credibility was how controlled and careful he was in his testimony. He did not stretch the truth,” Wine-Banks noted. “When he thought that there was something exonerating, he said it.”
“That’s an example of a credible witness — that made me think that people will believe him,” she concluded.