Takeaways from Day 21 of the Trump Hush Money Trial
Prosecutors presented their closing arguments on Tuesday, claiming a "mountain of evidence" proves that Donald Trump falsified business records to cover up a damaging story about an alleged affair during the 2016 election.
In response, Trump's defense team argued that the prosecution's case heavily relies on the testimony of Michael Cohen, whom they labeled the "MVP of liars" with a vendetta against Trump.
The jury's belief in either narrative could be crucial in determining Trump's legal fate.
During their closing arguments, both the defense and prosecution presented starkly different stories about the payment made to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 and the subsequent reimbursement to Cohen the following year.
On Wednesday, Judge Juan Merchan will provide the jury with instructions before they begin deliberations. The outcome of this historic and unprecedented trial could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential election.
#### Key Points from the Closing Arguments:
**Defense Argues Jurors Cannot Convict Based on Michael Cohen’s Testimony**
- **Defense Attorney's Focus**: Todd Blanche, a defense attorney, dedicated much of his two-hour closing argument to discrediting Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney. Blanche argued that Cohen's extensive history of lying disqualifies his testimony. He even called Cohen the "GLOAT" – the "Greatest Liar of All Time."
- **Cohen's Credibility**: Blanche specifically attacked Cohen's testimony about an October 24, 2016, phone call with Trump. Cohen claimed that Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, put Trump on the phone to discuss the Daniels payment. However, Blanche presented text messages suggesting the call was about a teenager harassing Cohen.
- **Accusation of Perjury**: Blanche argued that Cohen's contradictory statements amount to perjury. He pointed out that Cohen's texts to Schiller, around the same time as the alleged call, were about dealing with the teenager's harassment, not the Daniels payment.
- **Lack of Corroborating Evidence**: Blanche emphasized that there is no evidence linking Trump to the payment to Daniels outside of Cohen’s testimony. He insisted that the jury cannot convict Trump based solely on Cohen's unreliable word.
- **Prosecution's Objection**: The prosecution objected when Blanche mentioned prison, as jurors are not to consider penalties, which are determined by the judge. Despite the admonishment, Blanche's point about Cohen’s credibility was made clear.
The trial now moves to the jury deliberation phase, with Judge Merchan set to instruct the jury on Wednesday. The decision will hinge on which narrative the jurors find more credible, potentially marking a pivotal moment in Trump's legal battles and the 2024 presidential race.
 |
| Why a defense attorney says Trump's attorney is in a 'tough spot' for closing arguments |
\
Takeaways from Day 21 of the Trump Hush Money Trial
**Prosecution Defends Cohen but Argues There's More to the Case**
In the afternoon session, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass countered the defense's attacks on Michael Cohen’s credibility, asserting there is ample corroboration for Cohen’s testimony from both documents and other witnesses, particularly former AMI chief David Pecker.
Steinglass stated, “We didn’t choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. The defendant chose Michael Cohen as his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on his behalf.” He argued that Cohen’s testimony is supported by substantial evidence, despite defense claims.
**Role-Playing to Dispute Defense Allegations**
To rebut defense attorney Todd Blanche's claims about an October 24, 2016 call between Cohen and Trump, Steinglass engaged in role-playing. Pretending to be Cohen, Steinglass acted out a conversation that involved both Schiller and Trump, illustrating how Cohen could have swiftly discussed the prankster issue and the Daniels payment within the 1 minute 36 second call.
“These guys know each other well. They speak in coded language, and they speak fast,” Steinglass said, emphasizing the long-standing relationship and communication style between Cohen and Trump.
**Bolstering Cohen’s Credibility with Pecker’s Testimony**
Steinglass highlighted David Pecker’s testimony, which corroborated Cohen’s account, particularly regarding a phone call with Trump about the Karen McDougal story in June 2016. “Trump is deputizing Cohen right in front of Pecker so that Pecker knows that any go ahead from Cohen is a go-ahead from Trump,” Steinglass explained, presenting this as powerful evidence of Trump’s involvement independent of Cohen.
**Walking Jurors Through the Entire Case**
Steinglass spent over four hours reviewing all the documents and testimony presented during the six-week trial, from the 2015 Trump Tower meeting to Trump’s pressure on Cohen in 2018 before Cohen began cooperating with federal investigators. He framed the case as one of concealment, stating, “All roads lead inescapably to the man that benefited the most, the defendant, former President Donald J. Trump.”
Steinglass argued that Trump, Pecker, and Cohen entered a conspiracy in 2015, with Pecker acting as the "eyes and ears" of the campaign. He emphasized the panic within Trump’s campaign following the "Access Hollywood" tape release and the urgency to silence Daniels.
**Highlighting Financial Transactions and False Records**
Steinglass discussed the $130,000 wire transfer to Daniels’ attorney through an LLC and the handwritten calculations by former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to reimburse Cohen, illustrating attempts to conceal the true nature of the payments. “We don’t have to prove that the defendant made and created the false entries himself,” Steinglass said, arguing Trump is guilty if he caused false entries in his business records.
He called the handwritten notes from Weisselberg and former Trump Org. controller Jeff McConney “smoking guns,” refuting the defense’s claim that the payments were for legal services rendered.
**Defense Raises Reasonable Doubt**
Defense attorney Todd Blanche repeatedly emphasized reasonable doubt, concluding his closing argument with “10 reasons” why jurors should doubt the case. He argued that the invoices and vouchers for paying Cohen were accurate since Cohen was working as Trump’s attorney, that Trump had no intent to defraud, and there’s no evidence Trump knew the invoices were sent.
Blanche also contended there was no attempt to conceal or commit another crime, a requirement for a felony conviction, and denied any agreement to influence the 2016 election. He argued that AMI would have published Dino Sajudin’s story about an alleged Trump love child if true, that McDougal didn’t want her story public, and that Daniels’ story was already known in 2011.
Blanche concluded by describing Cohen as the “human embodiment of reasonable doubt,” asserting, “He lied to you repeatedly. He lied many, many times before you even met him. He is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true.”
Summary
The day’s closing arguments highlighted the prosecution’s reliance on corroborative evidence beyond Cohen’s testimony, and the defense’s strategy of undermining Cohen’s credibility to establish reasonable doubt. With Judge Juan Merchan set to instruct the jury on Wednesday, the trial’s outcome could significantly impact Trump’s legal standing and the 2024 presidential election.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment