On Tuesday, May 28th, the defense lawyers and prosecutors for former President Trump concluded their closing arguments in the hush money case.
In the morning, Trump’s lawyer Blanche completed about three hours of closing arguments. Subsequently, prosecutor Steinglass presented a marathon closing argument to the jury for nearly six hours, extending the trial well beyond the usual adjournment time.
Judge Merchan announced that the jury would return to court on Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock to receive legal instructions before deliberations. The judge will summarize the evidence for the jury and explain the relevant legal knowledge for the verdict.
It is expected that the jury will begin deliberations before lunch and make a decision by 4:30 in the afternoon. The jury will only determine guilt. If convicted, sentencing will be determined by the judge.
In this case, Trump is facing 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, each of which could result in up to four years in prison.
These charges stem from the final stages of the 2016 presidential campaign when Trump’s former lawyer Cohen paid $130,000 to adult film actress Daniels.
The prosecution argues that these payments, later classified as “legal fees,” should have been campaign donations, indicating Trump’s attempt to unlawfully influence the outcome of the 2016 election, rather than merely to spare Trump embarrassment.
Trump is pleading not guilty in this case and denies any sexual contact with Daniels. This case is one of the four criminal cases he is facing and likely the only one with a jury verdict before the November U.S. presidential election.
Trump believes that these four lawsuits are meant to hinder his campaign and prevent his return to the White House.
The defense and prosecution raised several key points during closing arguments:
Lawyer Blanche emphasized that Trump did not commit a crime. He argued that Daniels, in 2016, attempted to extort money from Trump by leveraging rumors of a supposed sexual encounter with Trump ten years prior.
Blanche presented a list of ten reasonable doubts to the jury, including the local prosecutors failing to meet their burden of proof, the lack of evidence showing Trump used unlawful means to influence the election, and the possibility that Trump never reviewed the checks he signed for Cohen because “in 2017, he was managing the nation.”
Blanche also warned the jury not to trust Cohen, the prosecution’s key witness, who has a history of perjury and once embezzled $30,000 from the Trump Organization.
He called Cohen the “MVP of con artists” and told the jury, “You can’t send someone to jail based on Cohen’s word.”
Blanche urged the jurors to separate their feelings towards Trump from the facts presented. This issue has been looming over the case from the beginning.
In his conclusion, Blanche urged the jury not to treat this case as a “referendum at the ballot box,” adding, “The judgment you must make is based solely on the evidence presented in court.”
Prosecutor Steinglass revisited a series of evidence, including emails, text messages, handwritten notes, and recordings, asserting that Trump paid Daniels through Cohen and deemed it Trump’s “conspiracy and cover-up.”
“The defendant did not pay the lawyer, but paid the adult film star through the lawyer,” Steinglass said, suggesting that the plan was devised to influence voters in the days leading up to the election.
Steinglass argued that Trump “did not want the American public to see,” believing that Trump’s motive for the crime was to prevent the public from knowing Daniels’ story.
The prosecutor tried to sidestep Cohen’s credibility issues, claiming that other people’s documents and testimonies support Cohen’s statements.
Steinglass told the jurors that whether they like Cohen is irrelevant; the key is whether he provided useful and reliable information.
He claimed that Cohen acted at Trump’s direction, giving Trump plausible deniability regarding knowledge of the hush money agreement. Steinglass said, “The defendant chose him as a middleman because he was willing to lie and deceive for him.”
Steinglass argued that Trump is a hands-on manager and portrayed Cohen as a self-promoter.
“Why wouldn’t he tell Trump? It doesn’t make sense,” he said, “Trump is the beneficiary of the entire conspiracy; he’s the one trying to be elected.”
Steinglass stated that this case not only involves Trump’s electoral influence but also touches on the basic fairness of New York commerce.
“You cannot lie in your business records; that’s the core of this case: cheating,” Steinglass concluded.