Former top prosecutor shows why Hope Hicks 'is such a devastating witness against Trump'

Andrew Weissmann, the former top prosecutor on former special counsel Robert Mueller's team, explained on Friday why he thinks former Donald Trump aide Hope Hicks was such a "devastating" witness against the former president in his criminal case.

Hicks, who cried on the stand for what some experts say are "dark" reasons, testified that she didn't believe Trump's suggestion that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels out of the goodness of his heart. The prosecution alleges the "hush money" payment was used to affect the election in 2016.

But for Weissmann, Hicks destroyed Trump's defense for a number of reasons.

ALSO READ: Trump vs. history: Former presidents typically implode on their comeback tours

"Why Hicks is such a devastating witness against Trump," Weissmann wrote after the Friday hearing. "1. Hicks makes clear Trump knew of the Cohen payoff scheme to Daniels. 2. Even if you believe his statement to her that he only learned after the fact. 3. Her testimony sinks Trump's defense since he is on record in a civil case admitting that he reimbursed Cohen the $130,000. 4. Hicks establishes that Trump knew that money was for Daniels' silence- not for the claimed legal fees for ongoing legal work by Cohen."

He then continued:

"Hicks suggests that #2 was a lie by Trump to her (because she testified that Cohen was not a charitable kind of guy who would keep his good deed to himself), but it does not matter- even if the jury believes Trump only knew later, he knew PRIOR to making all the reimbursement payments to Cohen."

Further, according to Weissmann, this is all part of the prosecution's plan to use Trump's inner circle against him at trial.

"And Hicks' crying on the stand makes it that much clearer that she does not want to be implicating her former boss-- the DA is making the case, as the J6C did, through Trump loyalists."

Conservative attorney George Conway also chimed in, agreeing with Weissmann:

"Yep. Even if Cohen had advanced the money in October 2016 on his own without any expectation of repayment by Trump—a ludicrous lie—Cohen would have committed a campaign finance violation (which is why he pleaded guilty to one)," Conway said Friday. "Trump told Hicks a ludicrous lie, one she didn’t believe, when he claimed Cohen acted unilaterally. But even if Trump had been telling her the truth, it wouldn’t make his crime any less a crime—in particular, any less of a felony."