Closing Arguments End in Trump's Hush Money Trial

[Social Media]

 

The hush money trial involving former President Donald Trump has reached its concluding phase, with both the defense and prosecution delivering their closing arguments. The defense, represented by Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche, focused on discrediting the prosecution's key witness, Michael Cohen, while the prosecution, led by Joshua Steinglass, aimed to underscore the substantial evidence supporting their case. Here’s a detailed look at the arguments presented by both sides.

 

Defense Arguments: Attacking Credibility and Intent

 

Discrediting Michael Cohen:
Trump's attorney Todd Blanche concentrated on undermining the credibility of Michael Cohen, the prosecution's main witness. Blanche described Cohen as the "MVP of liars," emphasizing inconsistencies in Cohen’s testimony and highlighting his past actions, including stealing from the Trump Organization. Blanche asserted that the jury could not convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt based on Cohen’s words alone, which he claimed lacked any solid evidence.

 

Blanche argued that Cohen's testimony about a supposed retainer agreement with Trump in 2017 was false. He suggested that Cohen would not have worked for free and that Trump would not have overpaid him, pointing out instances where Cohen did perform legal work. According to Blanche, any payments labeled as "legal expenses" by the Trump Organization were standard practice and not criminal.

 

Lack of Intent and Knowledge:
Blanche further argued that Trump, who was President at the time, was too busy to be aware of the details of each check sent to Cohen. He noted that Trump's sons, Eric and Donald Jr., had co-signed some checks, implying a lack of direct involvement by Trump. Blanche insisted that there was no intent to defraud since the payments to Cohen were properly disclosed to the IRS.

He contended that the decision to pay $130,000 to Stormy Daniels was made by Cohen independently, without informing Trump, who Cohen believed would appreciate the action later. Blanche also dismissed the idea that Trump believed stories in the National Enquirer could influence the election outcome, labeling it "preposterous."

 

Curative Instruction:
During his closing argument, Blanche made an "outrageous" comment suggesting that the jury "cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen." The judge, Merchan, had to issue a curative instruction, reminding the jury that they are not supposed to consider potential penalties in their deliberations.

 

Prosecution Arguments: Corroborating Evidence and Motive

 

Substantial Evidence:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass countered the defense’s claims by asserting that the case did not rely solely on Cohen’s testimony. Steinglass pointed to a "mountain of evidence" corroborating Cohen’s account, including testimonies from other witnesses and documentary evidence. He emphasized that Cohen’s role was to provide context to the substantial physical evidence presented.

 

Stormy Daniels’ Credibility:
Steinglass also addressed the defense's attempts to undermine Stormy Daniels' credibility. He argued that the details Daniels provided about her interaction with Trump supported the truth of her claims. Steinglass suggested that the payment to Daniels and the falsification of business records were motivated by Trump’s desire to keep the affair hidden.

 

Contradictions in Defense Claims:
Steinglass pointed out inconsistencies in the defense’s narrative, particularly regarding the payment to Cohen. He noted that the defense's argument that the payments were for legal services was contradicted by handwritten notes from former CFO Allen Weisselberg and former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney. Steinglass highlighted these notes as evidence that the payments were reimbursements, as Trump himself had admitted.

 

Involvement in "Catch and Kill" Schemes:
The prosecutor argued that Trump was deeply involved in his business operations and had personally signed checks related to the payments. Steinglass presented vouchers and check stubs as evidence, emphasizing Trump’s signature in Sharpie as proof of his involvement. In referencing a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, Steinglass claimed that Trump and former American Media Inc. CEO David Pecker discussed how to manage negative stories about Trump through "catch and kill" operations. Although the exact terminology wasn’t used, Steinglass argued that such schemes were critical to Trump’s electoral success.

 

As the trial concludes, the jury faces the task of sifting through the arguments presented by both sides. The defense has focused on discrediting key witnesses and arguing a lack of intent and involvement by Trump, while the prosecution has underscored substantial corroborative evidence and the motive behind the hush money payments. The outcome now rests in the hands of the jurors, who must decide whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the former President.

 

Credit: CNN 2024-05-29

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe