The “hush money” case against Donald Trump has been widely criticized for its lack of evidence. The primary witness, Michael Cohen, has been denounced as a serial perjurer by a judge. Despite this, prosecutor Alvin Bragg seems to be counting on the jury to convict Trump regardless of the evidence. However, there is concern that the judge may rule in favor of a directed verdict by the defense due to insufficient evidence.
After three weeks of testimony, there is still confusion about the crime Trump allegedly committed. Bragg has vaguely referred to the labeling of payments to Stormy Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraudulent act to steal the election. However, it should be noted that these payments were made after the election, and many argue that characterizing them as legal expenses for a nondisclosure agreement is accurate. In fact, during the same election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed that hiding funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate.
Judge Juan Merchan has been criticized for failing to protect the rights of the accused in this case. To demonstrate neutrality, Merchan should grant the motion for a directed verdict. However, Bragg must show Merchan that there is evidence directly tying Trump to an intentional fraudulent scheme to conceal a crime. So far, Bragg has failed to do so.
One of Bragg’s witnesses, David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, testified about an uncharged transaction related to killing a story about Trump’s affair with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model. Pecker admitted that Trump had no knowledge of any reimbursement to Cohen for hush money and that he had killed or promoted stories for Trump before he announced his presidential run. Pecker also mentioned that Cohen often exaggerates and becomes argumentative during discussions.
Now, the prosecutors are relying on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who has a history of saying whatever serves his interests and those of his sponsors. Cohen must establish that Trump specifically knew and approved of characterizing the payments as “legal expenses” and that the denotation was intended to conceal them for election violations or fraud. However, it is highly unlikely that Trump will testify due to Merchan’s previous rulings allowing a sweeping scope for cross-examination.
Bragg’s goal is to have a “he said” case rather than a “he said, he said” case. With Trump effectively silenced, Bragg will argue that Cohen’s testimony alone is enough to proceed to the jury. Given the strong anti-Trump sentiment in New York, the testimony of a convicted, disbarred, serial perjurer may be sufficient. The ultimate decision lies with the judge.
