Analysis: Key Factors That Will Determine Trump's Future

TRUMP TRIAL DIARY

Finally, on Tuesday, we reached the closing arguments in the Manhattan criminal trial of former President Donald Trump. It took 20 days of trial, testimony from 22 witnesses, and over 200 exhibits.

Norm Eisen, a legal analyst for CNN, is currently observing former President Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan. He is documenting his observations for this CNN Opinion series. Check out his previous entries to stay updated:

Witness for Trump's defense ends on a disastrous note.

Trump’s defense got one last shot at Michael Cohen. Did they make their case?

Trump’s defense rocked Michael Cohen. But they didn’t knock him out

It's a lot of ground to cover, but at the heart of the matter are three key questions that defense counsel Todd Blanche and Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass focused on during their lengthy closing arguments.

Trump is accused of committing 34 counts of felony document falsification in connection to an alleged illegal scheme to hide the $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels through his former lawyer Michael Cohen. The payment was intended to keep her quiet about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump before the 2016 election, an allegation that Trump denies.

Were the 34 allegedly false records actually false?

The first pivot point is whether the 34 business records at the heart of the case actually contain false information.

Blanche explained to the jurors that the prosecution failed to prove their case on this crucial issue. He pointed out that the payment to Daniels was clearly labeled as "legal expenses," "retainer," and "for services rendered" in the records, which accurately reflected the nature of the transaction. If these descriptions are correct, then no crime has been committed. However, if they are false, then the records themselves are inaccurate and the crime is proven.

Norm Eisen

Norm Eisen

Courtesy Norm Eisen

Blanche pointed out that Cohen had done legal work related to the Trump Foundation, a case involving Summer Zervos, and creating Melania Trump's figurine at Madame Tussaud’s. She believed that Cohen was lying when he claimed the work was minimal or free.

Steinglass strongly disagreed with the accusation that Cohen had lied. He highlighted that the total legal work done was less than 10 hours, which would equate to a fee of $42,000 per hour. Steinglass also argued against Blanche's focus on the October 24, 2016, phone call between Cohen and Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller. He believed that the call could have easily covered discussions on prank calls Cohen had received and the Daniels deal. In a dramatic moment, Steinglass re-enacted the call in less than 50 seconds to prove his point.

Steinglass argued that the handwritten notations of the "grossed up" payment to Daniels, as recorded by Allen Weisselberg and Cohen, were a crucial piece of evidence. These notes, known as People's Exhibit 35, indicated that the hush money payment was intended to silence Daniels and prevent her from revealing her alleged affair with Trump during the presidential campaign. This, Steinglass contended, constituted an illegal campaign contribution that was later reimbursed to Cohen after being doubled for taxes.

Furthermore, Steinglass disputed Blanche's assertion that the payment was for "legal expenses" or as a "retainer" for services rendered by Cohen. He argued that Trump did not pay a lawyer but instead funneled money through Cohen to pay off a porn star. The prosecutor emphasized that the payment was not made for legitimate legal services, but rather to keep Daniels quiet about her relationship with Trump.

“Documents don’t lie, and they don’t forget,” Steinglass said, and I think the prosecutors got the better of this exchange.

Did Trump possess an intent to defraud?

The prosecution must prove that Trump had an intent to defraud, even if the documents were false. This means intentionally lying in his business books and records falls under the statute. The second crucial point in the closing arguments and the case is determining if Trump had the necessary fraudulent intent.

Former President Donald Trump arrives for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 28, in New York City.

Former President Donald Trump arrives for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 28, in New York City.

Spencer Platt/Pool/Getty Images

Related article

Takeaways from closing arguments in the Donald Trump hush money trial

Blanche argued that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt because Cohen's testimony about Trump's involvement could not be trusted due to his history of lying. Without Cohen's testimony, there was no other evidence of Trump's intent. Additionally, Trump openly disclosed the reimbursement multiple times, including on Twitter, a 1099 form to the IRS, and a federal financial disclosure form.

Steinglass pointed out that these disclosures were actually admissions of reimbursement, which helped prove that Trump knew the business records were false when they indicated the payments as income. Furthermore, many of these disclosures were made after the scandal emerged in 2018, which does not align with innocent intent.

Steinglass pointed out that the jury did not have to solely rely on Cohen's word. He mentioned that every crucial point made by Cohen is supported by other evidence or common sense.

He emphasized to the jurors that this case has a high level of corroboration, citing records that confirm Cohen's interactions with Trump, testimonies from other witnesses regarding Trump's financial oversight, and the significant detail that nine checks were signed by Trump himself.

The prosecution faces a challenge when it comes to proving intent. Personally, I believed that the prosecution had a stronger case. However, if there is a juror who refuses to reach a verdict, it could lead to a mistrial.

The question remains: Did Trump try to hide a conspiracy during the election?

A third important point to consider is that for the 34 supposedly falsified documents to be considered felonies, they must have been made to hide another illegal act. Steinglass started his closing statement after the break by emphasizing this to the jury: "At the heart of this case is a scheme to manipulate the 2016 election and an attempt to conceal the payment to Stormy Daniels."

CNN

video

Related video

Ty Cobb predicts a guilty verdict in Trump hush money trial. Here’s why

Blanche likely anticipated this issue and dedicated a significant portion of his morning closing argument to addressing it. He argued that the co-conspirators' efforts to influence the election must have involved something illegal under the New York election conspiracy statute. Blanche also pointed out that the DA had not provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He highlighted testimonies from Hope Hicks and Madeline Westerhout, stating that Trump's actions to protect his family from Daniels' allegations were lawful. Blanche emphasized that nondisclosure agreements and campaign protection, like those in this case, are common and not illegal.

Steinglass countered Blanche by presenting a chronological account of the alleged conspiracy starting from August 2015. He meticulously detailed the unlawful means that were allegedly used, including violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act due to the hush money exceeding legal contribution limits. Steinglass also pointed out tax law violations involving misclassified reimbursements and the creation of false documents by Cohen to facilitate payments. Cohen's manipulation of bank and corporate records was also highlighted as part of the alleged conspiracy.

Get our free weekly newsletter

Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

The defense argued that Cohen lied, while the prosecution focused on corroborating Cohen's claims. They provided detailed evidence of the unlawful methods used in the alleged conspiracy, presenting testimony from multiple witnesses and showcasing a large portion of their exhibits.

The prosecution had a strong argument supported by the law. Even if Trump paid hush money to Daniels to protect his family, the law still allows for conviction if the conspiracy was also intended to benefit the campaign.

Going into the closing arguments, the prosecution was in the lead. Tuesday's closing arguments did not change this. While there are options for jurors like questioning intent, the likelihood of a hung jury is low.

Editor's P/S:

The Manhattan criminal trial of former President Donald Trump has concluded with closing arguments focusing on three key questions: the veracity of the alleged false records, Trump's intent to defraud, and the connection between the falsified documents and an illegal election conspiracy. The prosecution presented a strong case, supported by evidence and corroborating witnesses, arguing that Trump intentionally falsified business records to hide an illegal campaign contribution to Stormy Daniels. The defense, on the other hand, questioned the reliability of Cohen's testimony and argued that Trump's actions were lawful, aimed at protecting his family. Despite the defense's efforts, the prosecution appears to have the stronger case, making the likelihood of a hung jury low.

The trial has exposed a complex interplay of legal technicalities, political implications, and ethical considerations. The outcome will have significant implications for Trump's legacy and the future of American politics. The verdict will be closely watched by both supporters and detractors, as it could potentially set a precedent for how former presidents are held accountable for their actions.