Former President Donald Trump leaves Manhattan Criminal Court at the end of the day in his criminal trial for allegedly hiding secret money payments in New York on Tuesday.
Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images
NEW YORK — Lawyers made their final arguments Tuesday in their effort to convict or acquit former President Donald Trump of 34 counts of falsified business records as the historic trial nears its end.
A 12-person jury, which heard from 22 witnesses and more than six hours of debate, is expected to begin deliberating Wednesday. It could be hours, days or weeks before they make a decision. A unanimous jury is needed to convict or acquit Trump.
Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, has frequently called the trial “election interference” for preventing him from campaigning for president, falsely claiming it was a partisan conspiracy against him.
On Tuesday, Trump was joined in court by more family members than usual. Children Donald Jr., Eric and Tiffany were present in the courtroom, along with son-in-law Michael Boulos and daughter-in-law and RNC co-chair Lara Trump.
As Trump attorney Todd Blanche began closing arguments, the Biden-Harris campaign held an event outside the Manhattan courthouse with actor Robert DeNiro and U.S. Capitol Police officers Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone.
Prosecutors say Trump was aware of a settlement negotiation with adult film actor Stormy Daniels to keep his affair allegations out of the press before the 2016 election and that Trump ordered his former “fixer » Michael Cohen to pay a $130,000 settlement to his. Prosecutors say the falsified business documents, described in part as “legal warrants,” constitute a paper trail of Cohen.
Trump has long maintained that he only pays his lawyer.
The defense first presented its closing arguments, focusing on Michael Cohen.
As required by New York law, Trump’s defense presented the first round of closing arguments, which lasted more than two hours. Blanche focused on the credibility issues surrounding Cohen.
Here are four highlights from his summary of their defense:
1. Who did not testify
The defense spent time pointing out potential witnesses the jury didn’t hear from — particularly Allen Weisselberg, Don Jr. or Eric Trump, who were then executives at the Trump Organization; Dylan Howard, former editor-in-chief of National investigator; Gina Rodriguez, who managed Stormy Daniels; or Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller.
2. Documents
Blanche claims Trump’s sons signed two checks that constitute some of the charges. And he also told the jury that Cohen was the one who generated the 11 invoices that make up 11 of the counts against Trump.
He argued that the allegedly fake warrant was a legitimate warrant for services — particularly because Cohen presented himself as Trump’s personal attorney.
“You shouldn’t think that the word ‘deposit’ makes any difference to the reason for payment: it’s just one word,” Blanche said.
3. Cohen’s credibility
Blanche attempted to sow doubt about various conversations Cohen recalls having with Trump, including at the White House, allegedly about the deal to silence Daniels. But the defense also argued that Cohen lied on the stand, answering questions one way for the prosecution but a different way for the defense.
“Cohen lied to you,” Blanche said several times to hammer home the point to the jurors at different stages of her speech.
He also spent time questioning Cohen’s secret recording of a conversation with Trump that allegedly confirmed knowledge of the payment and settlement to the former Playboy model Karen McDougal.
4. Electoral influence
Blanche reiterated one of the points he made during the openings: It doesn’t matter whether there was a conspiracy to try to influence the election. “Every campaign is a conspiracy to promote a candidacy,” Blanche said.
It’s common, Blanche said, for celebrities and candidates to work with media outlets, such as tabloids, to promote themselves and their campaigns.
Blanche argued that it “makes no sense” that Trump, Cohen and former editor David Pecker actually believed they could influence the 2016 election using the National investigator tabloid.
“There’s nothing wrong with President Trump wanting to get positive information,” Blanche said. But he added: “The idea that informed people believed that positive articles in the National Enquirer could influence the election is absurd. »
Blanche said the tabloid’s reach was far less than would ever have been necessary to swing the election.
The floor grows back
Prosecutors spent 6 hours explaining to the jury each part of their case and refuting the defense’s claims. Prosecutor Josh Steinglass presented the jury with all their testimony: that of the 2006 sexual encounter Daniels described, saying Cohen knew what happened in that hotel room “and it goes to motive.” Steinglass told the jury of Stormy Daniels’ testimony: “This is the display that the defendant did not want the public to see.” »
Here are four highlights from their closing arguments:
1. The 1 minute and 36 second phone call
Prosecutor Josh Steinglass took out his own phone, set the timer and reconstructed a call that was the focus of Cohen’s cross-examination and direct examination two weeks ago. Cohen testified that in a phone call he spoke both with Trump’s bodyguard about the harassment of a teenager and separately with Trump about paying Daniels. Trump’s lawyers sought to discredit Cohen’s recollection of the conversation, arguing that it would be difficult to address both topics in such a short period of time.
Starting with: Hey, Keith, how are you? » Steinglass had a simulated phone call in which he discussed the problem of a teenage prankster who was harassing Cohen, then said, “Can I talk to the boss?” Then Steinglass simulated a brief conversation about how to take care of “that thing,” and small talk.
“And this whole thing took 49 seconds,” about half the length of the call in question, Steinglass said, adding that it was just one of 20 calls Cohen received.
2. The validity of witnesses
Steinglass told the jury that to acquit Trump, they would have to ignore the testimony of several witnesses — not just Cohen’s — including that of former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney and other evidence like handwritten notes on bank statements that detailed the calculations. how payments would be made.
Steinglass referred to various witnesses who came to testify, including current and former employees of Trump’s business and administration. He also discussed witnesses who work for companies that published Trump’s books about his business philosophy.
Rereading paragraphs from the books, Steinglass doubled down on Trump’s “frugality” and reminded the jury of Pecker’s testimony, in which Trump was also described as frugal.
2. Trump’s business practices
Steinglass once again examined the specific checks and invoices in question and how Deborah Tarasoff, the Trump Organization’s accounts payable supervisor, grouped them together to send to Trump even after he arrived in the White House.
Prosecutors argued that even the chief financial officer, Weisselberg, could only approve invoices up to $10,000.
“Despite his frugality and attention to detail, the defendant did not ask any questions because he already knew the answers,” Steinglass argued, asking the jury not to believe the “false narrative that the defendant was too busy” while he was in court. The White House noticed that large sums of money were being spent.
There were two documents that showed handwritten notes from Trump’s CFO and his controller that clearly laid out the reimbursement scheme: 130 times two, to cover taxes, plus another expense, plus a bonus, for a total of 420 000 $. Steinglass said: “This is irrefutable evidence. »
“They completely blew up the defense claim that this was legal work,” he said, adding: “I’m almost speechless that they’re still trying to make this argument that it was a legal mandate.”
3. Election concerns
Steinglass focused on concerns he said Trump had about how the story of the alleged affair with an adult film star could harm his 2016 presidential campaign. He argued that Trump -even had asked Pecker and Cohen to address the cancellation of negative media – particularly women’s allegations about Trump before 2016.
The prosecutor said it all started during that August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with the National investigator publisher, Pecker. Steinglass said: “Once money starts changing hands, it is a violation of federal election law. »
He reiterated that Trump’s concern was not his family, but the election, and the deal with the tabloid shows that was the motivation for a settlement 10 years after the alleged meeting.
“It’s buying an article that you don’t intend to print, so that no one else can print it,” Steinglass said, referring to Blanche’s argument that tabloids buy often articles and then choose not to publish them.
Tying that to the Daniels’ payment, Steinglass reminded jurors of the timing — how the agreement for Daniels to sign a nondisclosure agreement came after the Access Hollywood tape became public.
“Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that the defendant was more than just words,” Steinglass said.
NPR’s Andrea Bernstein contributed to this report.
NPR News
