While Trump kept watching, Cohen breathed a sigh of relief after asking blunt questions.

(CNN) — It wouldn’t be surprising if the jury in Donald Trump’s first criminal trial now sees his former fixer Michael Cohen as a profane social media troll and a vindictive liar who dreams of looking like the boss he once was. Prefered behind bars.

But jurors don’t have to like Cohen. You just have to believe in it.

Trump’s self-described “former thug” faced a relentless attack from defense attorney Todd Blanche in cross-examination Tuesday, aimed at destroying his credibility as a star witness to the former president’s alleged criminal behavior, but most importantly. The point is that he has not lost his credibility. So far, he has avoided threats that could weaken the case.

Cohen will have time to take stock this Wednesday, the trial’s usual recess day, which will also give Trump’s team a chance to refine its approach. Meanwhile, potential Republican candidates will take the opportunity to launch fundraising campaigns in Ohio and Kentucky before the trials resume this Thursday.

Cohen had previously directly implicated Trump in paying adult film star Stormy Daniels to conceal their alleged affair and apparently corroborated prosecutors’ evidence that the scheme was intended to influence the 2016 election. (Trump denied any affair and pleaded not guilty).

Therefore, the defense’s task on cross-examination was to undermine Cohen’s credibility to such an extent that it would create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror about the broader case.

Blanche explained to Cohen a long list of insults hurled at Trump following his split with his former mentor, highlighting his tendency to tell serial lies. He drew the jury’s attention to a social media post in which Cohen wore a T-shirt depicting Trump in prison, weaving a tale of bias and obsession. Blanch was also quoted as saying that she had built a lucrative business, particularly with books focused on criticism of the former president. He asked whether Cohen had called Trump a “grossly sarcastic misogynist.” Cohen responded, “That sounds like something I would say.” Trump’s lawyer then asked whether he had mocked the former president by calling him a “Cheetos-sprinkled cartoon villain.”

Blanche also tried to bring up Cohen’s resentment toward Trump, which she might later highlight to the jury in her closing arguments, by asking about a TikTok post in April in which he said Trump was “a Must be like an animal in a cage. And asked him to confirm that he had also called the presumptive Republican nominee a “stupid dictator.”

Michael Moore, a former federal prosecutor for the Middle District of Georgia, said the defense has made some progress in challenging Cohen’s credibility. “I really realize that the jury is probably watching right now and thinking Cohen is a fraud and a fraudster,” said Moore, the CNN legal analyst. “He’s clearly making money from it, he’s clearly someone who has a hand in selling his books.”

Big questions start arising in the case

But notably, Blanche focused primarily on her effort to tarnish Cohen’s character, motives, and credibility rather than on the central issue of the case: whether Trump carried out acts clearly designed to deceive the public in 2016. Falsified business records as part of a cover-up in an early example of election interference.

As usual when a Trump subordinate performs in front of his boss, it seems that Blanche’s theatrics worked to the benefit of both her client and the case. And at the start of the inquisitive cross-examination, Blanche got a rebuke from Judge Juan Merchan for making it all about her after he noticed Cohen had called her a “whiny little s***” on TikTok.

As the courtroom remained in darkness on Wednesday, the questions looming over the case begin with how badly Blanche managed to damage Cohen’s testimony and the prosecution’s case with her frontal attack.

Since the prosecution has already indicated it does not plan to call additional witnesses following Cohen’s testimony, attention turns to what approach the defense will take. Will Trump’s lawyers bring many witnesses? Or can they adopt a bolder strategy by simply arguing that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and concluding their argument dramatically?

Then there’s Trump’s initial indication that he might want to testify in his own defense. The former president loves the platform and considers himself its best defender, although history often suggests otherwise. But many lawyers believe that, given his volatile nature and difficulties in telling the truth, putting him on the stand would represent a potential disaster for the defense.

A major legal puzzle is whether prosecutors have so far succeeded in validating the legal theory behind the case. “I believe the misdemeanor charge of falsifying business records has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” retired U.S. District Court Judge Shira Sheindlin told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday. “Felony is a little more serious because you have to say that Trump knowingly and knowingly intended to violate election law in New York State by illegal means and federal funding law by illegal means.” Sheindlin added: “Cohen went to a long way to make that case.”

As the prosecution’s case nears its end, there is a growing sense that the fateful moment is approaching when Trump will have to wait for a jury to decide whether he will be charged with a crime. Would become the first President to be convicted. That visionary feeling was heightened by a new group of Trump supporters in court on Tuesday, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. The Louisiana Republican used the full symbolic weight of his office in an apparent effort to delegitimize the trial, bolstering Trump’s claim that he is a victim of armed justice and potentially countering a potential conviction with an early onslaught of political spin. Save yourself. “These are politically motivated trials and they are outrageous,” Johnson said outside court Tuesday. “This is election interference,” he said.

Defense strategy attracts attention

It is impossible to know how the jury will interpret the testimony until the verdict is reached, and even then, jurors often choose not to explain their verdict in detail in media interviews in such high-profile cases.

Some legal experts questioned the style and tactics adopted by Blanche in court on Tuesday. While Cohen’s reluctance to answer yes or no seemed petty and confrontational at times, he did not appear to say or do anything that would impact the prosecution’s case. Despite the lawyer’s constant prodding and attempts to throw her off her game by jumping erratically from one topic to another, she does not attack Blanche. “There has not been a major disaster yet,” former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe told CNN.

But CNN legal analyst Moore defended Blanche’s approach of altering the testimony timeline to try to shake up Cohen’s pre-trial preparations. “You want them to tell the story on your terms and not follow a script,” Moore said.

The prosecution knew that Blanch was going to be attacked and worked all Tuesday morning to prepare a story about the payment to Daniels and its purpose. Manhattan prosecutor Susan Hofinger attempted to undermine the defense’s claim that Trump’s reimbursements to Cohen were part of reimbursement for legal services and not a refund for maintaining Daniels’ silence.

In a key moment of the trial, which echoed outside the courtroom given the obligations Trump has imposed on many of his associates and subordinates, Cohen described the moment he broke with his former boss.

“My family, my wife, my daughter, my son, they all said to me, ‘Why do you hold on to this loyalty? What are you doing?'” Cohen said, adding that he had reached that point. Where it’s time to listen. “I will no longer lie about President Trump.”