According to Andrew McCarthy's comments on Fox News Digital, legal observers are stunned, as Michael Cohen, a key witness in the case against Donald Trump, potentially jeopardized the trial by discussing it and fundraising on TikTok.

TikTok’s monetization features, which allow viewers to send monetizable "gifts," have brought attention to Cohen's online activities as possible conflicts of interest. His public appearances and comments online have raised eyebrows and led to significant backlash from various quarters.

Renowned legal commentators and observers have criticized Cohen's reliability. They argue that depending on a witness with a questionable reputation and a history of legal troubles was risky.

Legal Professionals Weigh in on Cohen's Actions

According to legal expert Andrew McCarthy, Cohen’s credibility is a longstanding issue due to his past convictions for perjury and fraud. "It is a major problem for prosecutors... he is a convicted perjurer and fraudster whose current ‘defense’ of his fraud convictions is that he wasn’t telling the truth when he pled guilty," McCarthy explained.

Others echo this sentiment. Analyst and federal prisoner Michael Avenatti described Cohen's approach as potentially ruinous for the case against Trump.

"Michael Cohen, through his narcissism and his ego, may have just torpedoed the case against Trump," Avenatti observed, suggesting that these developments could lead to a mistrial or the case being dismissed.

Similarly, Jeremy Saland, an attorney, expressed urgency and concern about handling Cohen, suggesting that prosecutors should advise him to cease his public commentary immediately.

Court's Response and Public Debate

Despite Trump being under a gag order and forbidden from discussing the trial, Cohen was not initially subjected to such restrictions. Cohen had, however, promised to stop discussing the trial but briefly mentioned it again on TikTok, only adding fuel to the fire.

This action led to another round of criticism, notably from Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley, who found the situation absurd.

"You have someone who is making money, campaigning against Trump, and attacking him on this trial, and the judge is letting him speak but not for the president to respond," Turley noted, questioning the equal enforcement of speech restrictions.

Furthermore, Judge Juan Merchan's response to Trump's gag order violations resulted in a $9,000 fine, contrasting the handling of Cohen's situation, stirring controversy and debate over fairness and legal standards.

Criticism from Various Legal Experts

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office has not responded to inquiries regarding Cohen's actions and potential impacts on the case. This silence raises more questions about their strategy and the case’s solidity moving forward.

Legal experts like William A. Jacobson from Cornell Law School commented on the complications added by Cohen's financial gains from his trial discussions. "Michael Cohen has many pre-existing conflicts of interest when it comes to Donald Trump, calling into question his objectivity and veracity. Profiting off the trial adds another conflict to that pile," Jacobson stated.

In contrast, Cohen has defended his actions. On the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, he dismissed the criticisms from ABC News, suggesting a boycott of the outlet for what he described as depicting a "non-story."

Rising Concerns Among Prosecution and Observers

Legal ramifications and the general feedback loop from Cohen's behavior online continue to ripple through public and legal discourse. Former prosecutor Chris Timmons and attorney Jeremy Saland have voiced their frustration and concern, calling Cohen's volubility on such a sensitive matter inappropriate.

This mounting criticism underscores a broader debate about the character and reliability of key witnesses in high-profile cases, especially those involving significant political and public interest.

In light of these developments, critics and supporters of the case against Trump closely watch the proceedings, questioning each move and its implications on justice and fairness.

In conclusion, Michael Cohen's decision to discuss the NY vs. Trump case openly on TikTok and media platforms has stirred criticism, legal scrutiny, and controversy. Key legal figures question the wisdom of depending on such a compromised witness, with potential conflicts of interest complicating the case further. The situation remains fluid, with legal outcomes still uncertain as the trial proceeds.