Explainer
Explainer
Ten reasons to acquit: Trump trial key takeaways
– closing arguments
Lawyer Todd Blanche’s argument for why jurors should
find his client not guilty boiled down to a handful of principal lines
Hugo Lowell
Wed 29 May
2024 00.21 BST
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/28/trump-trial-key-takeaways-closing-arguments
Donald
Trump’s lawyer on Tuesday spent two hours focused on three key attacks against
the Manhattan district attorney’s case that the former president falsified
business records with an intent to commit a second crime – of covering up an
illegal federal campaign finance violation.
Lawyer Todd
Blanche presented at the end of his closing argument “10 reasons why” there was
reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case and the jury should acquit Trump. It
effectively came down to a handful of principal lines of argument:
1. Trump did not create the fake invoices and records;
Michael Cohen did
Blanche
pointed out that the 11 invoices each seeking $35,000 – which prosecutors have
said was part of a scheme to reimburse Cohen for paying the hush money to the
adult film star Stormy Daniels – were created by Cohen; Trump had no part in
creating the invoices.
The
invoices, which purported to seek payment for a legal retainer, were the basis
for the Trump Organization to enter “legal expenses” in its business records,
Blanche said. The multi-data system software had a dropdown menu, and Trump
Organization staff used that dropdown.
2. Trump did not willfully violate federal campaign
finance laws
Blanche
then argued Trump could not have possibly conspired to influence the 2016
election in violation of New York state laws, because the law would require
Trump to know he was using an “unlawful means” to influence the election.
The
prosecution would suggest, Blanche posited, that the $130,000 hush money to
Daniels exceeded federal campaign contribution limits. But Blanche argued there
was no evidence to suggest Trump knew the payment would be an illegal
contribution to his campaign, and knew he needed to cover it up.
3. The case rests on Cohen, who lies about everything
Blanche
spent the bulk of his time attacking Cohen’s credibility, noting Cohen had lied
to both houses of Congress, federal judges, the US justice department, and in
this trial, essentially making him the “Gloat” – or, the “greatest liar of all
time”.
The
implication was that none of Cohen’s testimony could be credited because he
lied with abandon. Cohen’s personal and financial wellbeing was motivated in
this case, Blanche said, and Cohen had an axe to grind.
The trouble
for Trump is that the lead prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, had rebuttals for all
three of Blanche’s attacks at the start of his closing arguments, before he got
into his summation proper.
4. Trump did not create the invoices, but ‘caused’
them to be created
Steinglass
pointed out that New York state law only required prosecutors to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Trump helped “cause” Cohen or others to make false
records. Steinglass suggested Cohen was carrying out an illicit repayment
scheme that Trump concocted.
5. Trump’s unlawful means were to pay to kill negative
stories
Steinglass
then argued there was evidence of “unlawful means” – which occurred the moment
“money changed hands” for the benefit of the Trump 2016 campaign in excess of
federal campaign contribution limits, which are set at $2,700 per election per
person.
Whether the
jury actually proceeds on that notion remains to be seen. The presiding judge,
Juan Merchan, has not yet ruled on what standard jurors have to use to decide
whether Trump used an unlawful method to influence the 2016 election.
6. Attacks on Cohen’s credibility were inconsistent
The defense
claimed that Cohen lied to Congress - but that’s kind of rich, Steinglass said,
since Cohen lied to Congress at Trump’s behest about the number of times Trump
had interacted with Russia, and Cohen got no benefit apart from staying in
Trump’s good graces.
The defense
also claimed Cohen stole $60,000 from the Trump Organization, when he billed
Trump for $50,000 in order to reimburse a $20,000 cost to an IT company because
the $30,000 delta was doubled up in the repayment scheme.
Steinglass
argued Blanche could not have it both ways – either Cohen was a thief, or he
was reimbursed for hush money.
Lawyer Todd Blanche’s argument for why jurors should
find his client not guilty boiled down to a handful of principal lines
Hugo Lowell
Wed 29 May
2024 00.21 BST
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/28/trump-trial-key-takeaways-closing-arguments
Donald
Trump’s lawyer on Tuesday spent two hours focused on three key attacks against
the Manhattan district attorney’s case that the former president falsified
business records with an intent to commit a second crime – of covering up an
illegal federal campaign finance violation.
Lawyer Todd
Blanche presented at the end of his closing argument “10 reasons why” there was
reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case and the jury should acquit Trump. It
effectively came down to a handful of principal lines of argument:
1. Trump did not create the fake invoices and records;
Michael Cohen did
Blanche
pointed out that the 11 invoices each seeking $35,000 – which prosecutors have
said was part of a scheme to reimburse Cohen for paying the hush money to the
adult film star Stormy Daniels – were created by Cohen; Trump had no part in
creating the invoices.
The
invoices, which purported to seek payment for a legal retainer, were the basis
for the Trump Organization to enter “legal expenses” in its business records,
Blanche said. The multi-data system software had a dropdown menu, and Trump
Organization staff used that dropdown.
2. Trump did not willfully violate federal campaign
finance laws
Blanche
then argued Trump could not have possibly conspired to influence the 2016
election in violation of New York state laws, because the law would require
Trump to know he was using an “unlawful means” to influence the election.
The
prosecution would suggest, Blanche posited, that the $130,000 hush money to
Daniels exceeded federal campaign contribution limits. But Blanche argued there
was no evidence to suggest Trump knew the payment would be an illegal
contribution to his campaign, and knew he needed to cover it up.
3. The case rests on Cohen, who lies about everything
Blanche
spent the bulk of his time attacking Cohen’s credibility, noting Cohen had lied
to both houses of Congress, federal judges, the US justice department, and in
this trial, essentially making him the “Gloat” – or, the “greatest liar of all
time”.
The
implication was that none of Cohen’s testimony could be credited because he
lied with abandon. Cohen’s personal and financial wellbeing was motivated in
this case, Blanche said, and Cohen had an axe to grind.
The trouble
for Trump is that the lead prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, had rebuttals for all
three of Blanche’s attacks at the start of his closing arguments, before he got
into his summation proper.
4. Trump did not create the invoices, but ‘caused’
them to be created
Steinglass
pointed out that New York state law only required prosecutors to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Trump helped “cause” Cohen or others to make false
records. Steinglass suggested Cohen was carrying out an illicit repayment
scheme that Trump concocted.
5. Trump’s unlawful means were to pay to kill negative
stories
Steinglass
then argued there was evidence of “unlawful means” – which occurred the moment
“money changed hands” for the benefit of the Trump 2016 campaign in excess of
federal campaign contribution limits, which are set at $2,700 per election per
person.
Whether the
jury actually proceeds on that notion remains to be seen. The presiding judge,
Juan Merchan, has not yet ruled on what standard jurors have to use to decide
whether Trump used an unlawful method to influence the 2016 election.
6. Attacks on Cohen’s credibility were inconsistent
The defense
claimed that Cohen lied to Congress - but that’s kind of rich, Steinglass said,
since Cohen lied to Congress at Trump’s behest about the number of times Trump
had interacted with Russia, and Cohen got no benefit apart from staying in
Trump’s good graces.
The defense
also claimed Cohen stole $60,000 from the Trump Organization, when he billed
Trump for $50,000 in order to reimburse a $20,000 cost to an IT company because
the $30,000 delta was doubled up in the repayment scheme.
Steinglass
argued Blanche could not have it both ways – either Cohen was a thief, or he
was reimbursed for hush money.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário