Don't miss a great discussion! Join HotAir VIP today and use promo code SKEPTICS to receive 40% off your membership. Sign up now and gain access to our Comments discussions, plus access all other exclusive content at Hot Air. Sign up for VIP Gold and get instant access to all exclusive content across the Townhall Media Group!

Welcome back to our VIP video series "The Amiable Skeptics," featuring my friend Adam Baldwin! Adam is well-known for his long and storied Hollywood career, starting with My Bodyguard, and especially for his roles in Full Metal Jacket, Firefly, its film sequel Serenity, Chuck, and The Last Ship.

This development took place this morning, after Adam and I recorded today's episode. Reuters notes that this admission might ding Cohen's credibility a bit:

Donald Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen testified on Monday that he stole money from Trump's company, an admission that could chip away at his credibility as a star witness at the former U.S. president's hush money trial.

Questioned by Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche, Cohen acknowledged stealing from the Trump Organization by including a reimbursement to a technology company in his bonus package and pocketing most of the money. ...

Cohen said he paid roughly $20,000 of the $50,000 that Trump's company owed to the tech company in cash, handing it off in a brown paper bag at his office. He said he kept the rest. He was reimbursed $100,000 total by the Trump Organization for that payment.

Did prosecutors know about this? If not, why not? This revelation raises all sorts of questions about this prosecution and whether Cohen could face criminal prosecution for felonious conduct in the same time frame as these charges in the trial. If not, why not? Did he get immunity from Bragg, and if so, to what extent ... and why? Embezzlement is a much more serious crime, especially for an attorney, than hush-money payments and questionable business records accounting for those transfers. 

Bear in mind that prosecutors have a duty to justice, not just seeking convictions on indictments handed down by grand juries. The prosecutors in this case based their case on a twice-convicted perjurer (Congress and the IRS), and who now has admitted to embezzlement and falsification of business records to accomplish it. It underscores that this case should never have been brought in the first place, but the acute question is this: why are prosecutors allowing this case to continue? And for that matter, why is Judge Juan Merchan refraining from a directed verdict of acquittal at this point?

That adds to other questions about Bragg's office, such as whether Manhattan prosecutors suborned perjury.  Michael Cohen's cross-examination continues today, and Adam Baldwin and I discuss the Perry Mason moment last week. Donald Trump's political opponents have very flexible standards on the law, as Peter Navarro could attest when it comes to prosecuting contempt-of-Congress charges too. What happens if Trump wins the election in November on the political-lawfare front?

Be sure to watch it all, and extend the conversation in the comments!