May. 28, 2024 at 9:21 am

Historic Trump criminal trial reaches critical day: closing arguments

Former President Donald Trump’s historic criminal hush money trial will reach a critical peak on Tuesday when the prosecution and defense will present their closing arguments to the jury. Each side will weave together five weeks of evidence and testimony to make a case for the first-ever conviction or acquittal of a former U.S. president.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal or commit another crime. Prosecutors argue Trump falsified records tied to reimbursing his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, for an unlawful $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Closing arguments can be crucial for helping jurors understand whether the testimony and evidence they have heard adds up to a compelling case.

Finally, jurors will hear the judge’s instructions on the law they should apply in the case.

To win a conviction, prosecutors have to prove not only that Trump falsified business records, but also that his motivation was to hide the violation of federal campaign finance laws in 2016 or hide a plan to violate New York tax or election laws. The alleged campaign finance violation was the $130,000 hush money, which prosecutors say was a campaign contribution that exceeded the $2,700 legal limit. Cohen pleaded guilty to that federal crime in 2018.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

These are the key questions the closing arguments will address and jurors will be asked to decide:

Is Trump responsible for falsifying records tied to hush money?

The 34 allegedly falsified records in the case are checks, vouchers, and invoices tied to a series of $35,000 payments to Cohen in 2017. Prosecutors say the payments were mischaracterized as 2017 legal expenses under a non-existent agreement to retain Cohen’s services. The payments were actually reimbursing Cohen for the hush money and another expense, as well as giving him an extra bonus.

Michael Cohen was a star prosecution witness for a reason: he had more to say than anyone else in the trial about Trump’s alleged participation in both paying the hush money and covering it up. Cohen testified that Trump approved the falsified reimbursement scheme during a meeting with Cohen and then-Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg in early 2017. Cohen also testified that Trump authorized the hush money to Daniels – saying “Just do it” – in October of 2016.

Prosecutors are likely to point to evidence from trial that bolsters Cohen’s testimony, such as Trump’s own signature – according to testimony from multiple witnesses who worked with him – on many of the checks to Cohen.

Prosecutors will probably also point to statements by Trump that suggest he would be paying attention to invoices from Cohen and to what his own checks were for. For instance, a book publisher read aloud these statements from Trump’s 2005 book, “Trump: Think Like a Billionaire”:

“I always sign my checks, so I know where my money’s going” and “I also always try to read my bills to make sure I’m not being over-charged,” Trump said.
“Pay attention to the small numbers in your finances, such as percentages and cents,” Trump said.
“Always look at the numbers yourself,” Trump said.
“(Even) though various payments always need to be made, always question invoices and never accept a contractor’s first bid,” Trump said.
“When you sign a check yourself, you’re seeing what’s really going on inside your business, and if people see your signature at the bottom of the check, they know you’re watching them, and they screw you less because they have proof that you care about the details,” Trump said.

Prosecutors are also likely to remind jurors of notes they saw that former Trump Organization executive Jeffrey McConney said were drafted by Weisselberg and outlined the calculation of payments to Cohen, including doubling the $130,000 hush money payment to account for taxes.

And prosecutors may try to bolster the notion that Trump was kept abreast of the Stormy Daniels hush money deal by pointing to an audio recording from the trial that allegedly involves Cohen and Trump talking about an earlier $150,000 hush money deal to quiet former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

In the somewhat cryptic conversation, Cohen references “our friend David” and “financing,” while Trump appears to ask about paying “150” and instructs not to pay with cash. Cohen testified he made the recording to reassure tabloid publisher David Pecker that Trump planned to re-pay him for the hush money.

What will Trump’s defense tell jurors about records?

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche gave a preview last week of what his team may argue to jurors. Blanche urged Judge Juan Merchan to toss out the entire case, saying the business records “were not false” because Cohen agreed he supplied Trump with legal services in 2017.

Trump’s team is also likely to tell jurors that Michael Cohen is a liar – so they can’t trust his testimony that the payments were actually reimbursing hush money, not paying for ongoing legal services. They may remind jurors that Cohen previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and making false statements to a bank.

Robert Costello – one of just two witnesses the defense called in the trial – may be a key focus in challenging Cohen’s testimony. Costello quoted Cohen as having said: “I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.” Meanwhile, Cohen said Costello was trying to create a back channel of communication to Trump, and he didn’t trust the “sketchy” lawyer.

Was this an attempt to hide unlawful election interference?

Prosecutors need to prove not just that Trump falsified business records, but also that he was trying to commit or conceal another crime. Their leading argument throughout the trial has been that Trump was trying to hide unlawfully interfering in the 2016 election. “It was election fraud, pure and simple,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told jurors in his opening statement.

That argument turns on whether the hush money payment to Daniels violated federal campaign finance laws. A key issue in answering that question will be whether the hush money was about the campaign, as opposed to protecting Trump’s marriage or family life.

In fact, former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards escaped conviction in his own criminal case on campaign finance charges by arguing that nearly $1 million from donors that was used to conceal an affair and illegitimate child during his campaign was aimed at shielding his actions from his cancer-stricken wife.

The prosecution in Trump’s case may point to a series of statements from witnesses at trial to make their case:

Michael Cohen testified that Trump urged him to delay paying Daniels until after the election, and then not pay her at all, saying if he lost the election, he “wouldn’t care” about the story.
Daniels’ former lawyer, Keith Davidson, backed up the testimony about Cohen delaying payment so much that he questioned whether they would get the money at all. Davidson said Cohen only paid less than two weeks before the election, at a time when Davidson believed Daniels really was going to go public, potentially with ABC News.
Jurors also heard a recording of Davidson claiming to Cohen that Daniels told him he “better settle this God damn story” because if Trump loses the election, “we lose all (expletive) leverage.”

Cohen also testified that Trump wasn’t thinking about his wife, Melania. Trump said, according to Cohen, that if she left him over the Daniels scandal, he wouldn’t be on the market long.
David Pecker testified “the conversations that I had directly with Mr. Trump, his family wasn’t mentioned.” Pecker said of one conversation in particular: “It was basically, what would be – the impact be – to the campaign or election.”
Former top White House aide Hope Hicks testified about a post-2016 election story about the hush money to Daniels. She said Trump asked for her thoughts on how an earlier story before the election would have compared has Cohen not paid the hush money. “I think Mr. Trump’s opinion was it was better to be dealing with it now, and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election,” she said.

What will the Trump defense team say?

Trump’s defense team appears poised to argue Trump didn’t know about the hush money payment ahead of time. In his cross-examination of Cohen, Blanche displayed text messages suggesting a call from Cohen to Trump’s bodyguard was to talk about harassment from a 14-year-old, not to get Trump on the phone about the Daniels hush money deal. Cohen said he believed he also discussed the deal with Trump.

In addition, the defense team could say there’s no clear evidence the hush money payment was focused on the election. Hope Hicks testified that Trump was “concerned” about how a November, 2016 story on the hush money deal involving McDougal would be viewed by Melania Trump, and wanted Hicks to make sure newspapers weren’t delivered to the Trump residence that morning.

Another former Trump White House aide, Madeleine Westerhout, also testified to admiring Trump’s relationship with his wife, although she also said she didn’t observe any change in the relationship after the Wall Street Journal reported on the Stormy Daniels hush money deal broke in 2018.

Was this an attempt to hide a plan to violate state election and tax laws?

Prosecutors are likely to also argue there are alternative options for convicting Trump, even if jurors don’t find that he falsified records in order to cover up the violation of federal campaign finance laws.

Source link

Tags :access:metered ssts:news:politics:elections sstsn:Elections tag:Allen Weisselberg tag:Courts & Judiciary tag:Crime & Justice tag:Criminal Justice tag:David Pecker tag:Donald Trump tag:Elections tag:Executive Branch tag:Hearings and Trials tag:Legal tag:Melania Trump tag:Michael Cohen tag:Overall Negative tag:Politics tag:Scandals & Investigations tag:Stormy Daniels tag:The Trump Organization type:story

add a comment

Historic Trump criminal trial reaches critical day: closing arguments

Leave a Response Cancel reply

Russian Lawmakers Approve Cryptocurrency Use in International Trade

US job openings fall marginally, consumers less upbeat on the labor market By Reuters

Elegance, Empowerment and Polo: The Impactful Legacy of Access Bank UK Polo

UK tourists in Madrid warned ‘don’t spend money’ and ‘stay out of restaurants’

Russian Lawmakers Approve Cryptocurrency Use in International Trade

US job openings fall marginally, consumers less upbeat on the labor market By Reuters

Elegance, Empowerment and Polo: The Impactful Legacy of Access Bank UK Polo

UK tourists in Madrid warned ‘don’t spend money’ and ‘stay out of restaurants’

Russian Lawmakers Approve Cryptocurrency Use in International Trade

Getting a Spanish mortgage | Expatica

Social Climate Fund will ensure the climate and energy…

Aggregated results of SREP 2023

The European Equity Fund: The Tailwinds Nudge The Headwinds (NYSE:EEA)

Popular posts

[Event] Crypto and Digital Asset Fraud & Recovery – April 25th – 26th, South Kensington, London, United Kingdom | American Conference Institute (ACI)

My top 5 dividend shares for 2023!

Why Indian regulators have stood up to an overbearing Europe

Taxes fund disaster rebuilding cycle

Crypto Community Demands Investigation Into Gensler-FTX Ties

Sections

Contact Info

Leave a Response Cancel reply

You Might Also Like