Last January, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg summed up his case against Donald Trump this way: “We allege the falsification of business records for the purpose of concealing information from voters. This is an election interference case.”
This explanation makes no sense because the records at the heart of the case—11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledgers, allegedly designed to disguise hush-money reimbursements as legal service fees—have already been produced back 2016 presidential election. At the time, Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen had paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to stop her from talking about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump, who had already been elected. A jury yesterday found prosecutors’ case against Trump strong enough to convict him on all 34 counts in a case filled with timing mysteries like this one.
A New York Times The editorial acknowledges that “many experts” “have expressed doubts about the significance of the case and its legal basis, which employs an unusual legal theory that seeks felony charges for a more common misdemeanor.” However, era It also claims the jury found Trump “guilty of falsifying business records to prevent voters from learning about a sexual encounter that he believed was politically damaging.” How did the record set in 2017 “prevent voters from learning” about Daniels’ tryst before they cast their ballots the previous year?
The editorial’s description of Cohen’s payment to Daniels is confusing for similar reasons. “Such a return is not illegal per se,” era admit. “What was illegal was the tampering of business records to conceal its true purpose, which prosecutors said was to conceal facts from the American people to help elect Mr. Trump.” In 2017, business records were “tampered with” again. era claimed it did not retroactively make Daniels’ payments “illegal.”
this era It also stated that the verdict “established that Mr. Trump committed a crime by concealing relevant information about himself from the American people in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.” The judgment did no such thing. Trump has not been charged with breaking the law by directing Cohen to pay Daniels. While the controversial characterization of the payment as an illegal campaign contribution arises from one theory that treats the forgery charge as a felony rather than a misdemeanor, the other two theories do not rely on the assumption that the payment was illegal. Base.
Because jurors were instructed not to decide on any particular theory, it was unclear whether they unanimously accepted that Trump “committed crimes by withholding relevant information about himself from the American people in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.” election. However, this characterization is consistent with the prosecution’s dubious “election fraud” narrative, which falsely suggested that “hiding relevant information about himself” was inherently criminal.
While juries clearly seem to accept this narrative, even prosecutors sometimes forget what they claim the case is about. They argue that Trump and Cohen violated an obscure and rarely invoked state law by conspiring to “unlawfully” influence the presidential election. They further argued that Trump falsified business records with the intent to assist or conceal criminal conduct, an element that would turn the charge into a felony. But some versions of the theory are logically impossible.
Under the “unlawful means” theory, Trump facilitated violations of New York tax law by allowing Cohn to misrepresent reimbursement amounts as income. But since Cohen filed those allegedly fraudulent tax returns in 2018, more than a year into Trump’s presidency, it’s unlikely that his false statements helped Trump win the election.
According to another theory, Trump falsified business records to hide the falsification other Business records, including a 1099-MISC form in which the Trump Organization incorrectly described Cohen’s reimbursements as income. Since Form 1099 was issued back In an election, it’s hard to see how they could secure Trump’s victory.
These logistical difficulties are just one of several reasons to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, which relies on complex theories involving interacting statutes and questionable assumptions about Trump’s knowledge and intent. But Trump’s lawyers did not focus on these weaknesses and, presumably at his request, decided to deny everythingIt begins with the story of Daniels having sex with Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel in July 2006 during a celebrity golf tournament.
The strategy led to embarrassingly detailed testimony from Daniels, who described Trump suddenly stripping naked in a bathroom and then having a “brief,” condomless sexual encounter “in missionary position.” Contrary to her previous statements, Daniels suggested that the sex was not entirely consensual, citing a “power imbalance,” noting that there was a bodyguard at the door of Trump’s hotel suite and saying that Trump’s failure to use condoms concerned her. , and although she added that she was not drunk or drugged, she described her mental state as hazy.
None of this has legal significance. What exactly happened in that hotel suite doesn’t matter when it comes to whether Trump caused the falsification of business records and his intent in doing so. Even if Daniels made up the entire thing, Trump would still be keen to silence her, whether for personal reasons, business reasons, political reasons, or some combination of the three.
The defense team also insisted that Trump did believe he was paying Cohen for his legal work, despite Trump publicly admitting that he reimbursed Cohen for Daniels’ fees. Trump’s lawyers disputed that he “knew of the payment” at the time, though it’s incredible that Cohen, who was eager to please Trump and frequently consulted with him, would have orchestrated the scheme himself, or that he believed Cohen would have orchestrated it himself plan.
It’s unclear whether Trump approved misleading records related to Cohn’s reimbursements, as Cohn claimed. Trump’s lawyers have blasted Cohen’s credibility at this point, saying jurors should not believe a convicted felon, disbarred and admitted liar who harbors a deep resentment against his former boss. But since they also implausibly claim that Cohen lied when he said Trump approved Daniels’ payout, the jury is likely to overlook any doubts about the veracity of Cohen’s account.
If Trump is willing to admit to some of the prosecutors’ charges, his lawyers may focus on flimsy legal arguments charging him with felonies. Not only did they not do it in a convincing way, they also failed to do it. They insist that jury instructions rule out the possibility that Trump is guilty of a crime other than a felony.
“Mr. Trump’s defense does not tell a simple story but is a jumble of denials and personal attacks,” defense attorney Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, commented. “That might work for a Trump rally or a Fox News segment, but it wouldn’t work in court. Maybe Mr. Trump’s team is also pursuing a political or journalistic strategy, but it’s certainly not a good legal strategy. Mr. Trump’s lawyers can The strong defense of exploitation was lost in the shuffle.
