We’re currently navigating through the sixth week of the former President Donald Trump’s trial concerning allegations of falsifying corporate records, commonly known in the media as ‘hush money’, and the developments suggest a shift in the winds. Presiding Justice Juan Merchan of New York Supreme Court commenced the week with a significant announcement, setting the stage for the final arguments to take place in the forthcoming week.
Anticipations are rife regarding the end of Michael Cohen’s testimony on Monday, which has been a focal point of interest throughout the trial. Trump’s legal counsel successfully utilized Cohen’s previous law infringements and deceitful history, in an attempt to question his trustworthiness last week. The prosecution, however, insists that additional witnesses and financial records endorse Cohen’s declarations.
Justice Merchan offered some guidance to the defense team, outlining areas for former Federal Election Commission chairman, Bradley A. Smith’s testimony. The defense aims to exploit Smith’s knowledge to convince the jury that Trump did not intend to manipulate the 2016 election through his alleged misinterpretation of his business records.
Parsing federal election laws is the proposed route, although, the experts are forbidden to explain the law or give interpretations, as per Merchan’s direction. He expressed concern that Smith’s testimony on campaign finance law would inevitably involve discussions or references regarding federal law precedents or the underlying intentions behind such rules.
The judge allowed Smith to cite relevant legislation and regulations but strictly prohibited him from providing any interpretation thereof. Failure to adhere to this would provide prosecutors the opportunity to introduce their campaign finance expert, transforming the trial into a duel of experts.
In response to defense lawyer Emil Bove’s query about whether Juan Merchan planned to instruct the jury on campaign finance and election manipulation, Merchan held off his decision until he received proposals from both parties. The judge subsequently asked for evidence showcasing what Smith intended to say, to which Bove provided a satisfying response.
On another front, recent events seem to have put District Attorney Alvin Bragg on the back foot. A noteworthy incident occurred when Hicks, a key prosecution witness, suffered an emotional breakdown in the courtroom. This unusual development led Judge Merchan to call for a brief intermission.
The defense attorney, Emil Bove, cross-examined Hicks after her testimony, causing her to become increasingly emotional, as per MSNBC. As Bove questioned Hicks about her tenure at the Trump Organization, she started losing her composure. Upon her return to the stand, the former president’s attorney comforted her and continued with the proceedings.
Hicks firmly testified, ‘He wanted no harm to come to his family or any embarrassment from anything related to his campaign. He wanted them to be proud of him’. This statement, however, caused a major setback for the prosecution. Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett described her assertion as an ‘epic miscalculation that spectacularly backfired’ on the prosecution’s side.
Jarrett opined that Hicks’ account effectively counters DA Alvin Bragg’s main line of argument against Trump, which accuses him of paying porn star Stormy Daniels hush money with the motive to impact his campaign, and in turn, manipulating the election results. On the contrary, it strengthens the conclusion of a federal investigation that found no evidence of unlawful activities or breaches in campaign finance laws as there was another purpose for the agreement Daniels signed.
Indeed, Hicks confirmed that Trump knew about Cohen’s payment to Daniels to cease her increasingly aggressive demands, that can be regarded as blackmail attempts. As the election came closer, Daniels intensified her efforts to gain profit from Trump by threatening to expose an alleged affair, which Trump has firmly denied. Following a surprising turn of events, she contradicted her previous denial.
Explaining the absurdity of the situation, her former attorney, Michael Avenatti, claimed from his jail cell that his ex-client and her lawyer at the time, Keith Davidson, had shaken down Trump before the elections. In an interesting twist, he went on to dismiss Davidson as a liar and declared that this was one of the reasons he had terminated Daniels as his client.
While the theatrical events of the trial unfold, Jarrett questioned the existence of any criminality, given that confidentiality agreements are legal. The payments made were inside legal boundaries, and extinguishing negative stories infringes no laws. Moreover, knowing about a legal transaction could not possibly be construed as a crime.
Jarrett further expressed skepticism about Alvin Bragg’s politically charged prosecution of Trump. Describing it as a concocted charade, he criticized the DA for resorting to lapsed misdemeanors and irrelevant state statutes, and magically transforming them into baseless charges against Trump.
