When federal prosecutors told Judge Pauley that “[i]n particular, and as Cohen himself now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of [Trump],” they were in effect representing to the judge that their evidence supported that conclusion. There is no question in my mind that the federal prosecutors, particularly their accomplished leader, Robert Khuzami, would have hedged their language if the conclusion were a close call.

The language they used strongly implies that they possess evidence beyond Cohen’s say-so. They wrote that “in particular, and as Cohen himself now admitted,” suggesting they had evidence pointing to Trump’s involvement before Cohen confirmed it. If they relied solely on Cohen, they would have made clear that Cohen asserted Trump’s involvement and they had no evidence to corroborate him.

Instead, they cited the pre-sentence report prepared by U.S. Probation after a thorough investigation by a probation officer, indicating that in its report Probation concluded Trump directed Cohen. Judge Pauley adopted the findings of that report today.