Here is an interesting tidbit that I haven’t seen reported on yet with respect to the New York Election Interference case. For background, the defense theory of the case, at least as presented to the Jury, is fairly simple:
Hush money isn’t illegal.
Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg deceived him about the accounting. Even if it rises to the level of a crime (which it shouldn’t), then it isn’t the defendant’s fault.
It’s so simple that it is easy to believe. That is exactly what the defense wants the jury to think of. The problem is, the entire situation stinks. If this was a routine hush money case, why did the defendant go through not one, but two intermediaries? Why didn’t he pay David Pecker back directly? It would have been cheaper to go that route instead of going through Michael Cohen and paying a fixer fee on top of the hush money itself. That makes no sense.
The prosecution theory is also simple and easy to believe.
In the light of the Access Hollywood tape release, defendant’s campaign was in panic mode. A second story threatened to break, and defendant arranged to have it killed via hush money (not illegal).
Defendant concealed the hush money payment as a tax deductible business expense (crime)
Defendant failed to report the hush money payment as a campaign contribution (crime)
But wait, why bring all of this up? Small potatoes campaign finance violations happen all the time as well as small potatoes ‘creative accounting’? Well in the context of a larger criminal enterprise, repeated and longstanding fraudulent activity, and many, many examples of falsified business records (hence 31 counts), yeah, it is worth bringing. Also the fact that much of this fraudulent activity happened in the context of dirtying a presidential election — which defendant won, and this is definitely worth wasting a Jury’s time on.
The defense counter is easy enough. This isn’t about election interference. This is simply a question of defendant wanting to be prudent with his public image. (not a good defense — it does not excuse the falsification of business records).
This runs into a trap that I haven’t seen reported anywhere. The trap is New York law 255.17. If the defendant was trying to conceal the affairs from Melania, then he is admitting to paying hush money to facilitate adultery — a crime in New York. Good luck getting a jury to believe that you kept paying hush money to women but kept your hands to yourself.