Prosecutors in Donald Trump’s New York criminal case face the challenge of convincing a jury that the alleged falsification of business records is tied to a more serious crime. Mr. Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, which are misdemeanor offenses on their own. However, Manhattan prosecutors have elevated the charges to felonies by connecting them to an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the 2016 election.
The prosecution’s case revolves around a so-called hush money scheme, with evidence including checks, business ledgers, emails, and text messages that allegedly indicate a cover-up to classify payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels as “legal expenses.” These charges are elevated to felonies if they were made with the intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” one.
The underlying crime at the heart of the case is the alleged scheme to suppress politically compromising stories involving candidate Donald Trump and his alleged affairs, with the aim of protecting his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors contend that Mr. Trump falsified business records with the intent to conceal or promote the election conspiracy through “unlawful means.”
During witness testimony, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass hinted at the relevance of questioning former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker to the “primary” underlying crime. Mr. Steinglass inquired about Mr. Pecker’s meetings with Steve Bannon, one of Mr. Trump’s chief advisers during the 2016 campaign. Defense attorney Emil Bove objected to the questions, alleging hearsay, but Mr. Steinglass argued that they tied Mr. Pecker’s work with the campaign to the “primary” election crime driving the prosecution’s case.
In opening statements, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo emphasized the significance of the case against the former president, characterizing it as a “criminal conspiracy and a cover-up.” He accused Mr. Trump of orchestrating a scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election and then concealing it by falsifying business records. Mr. Colangelo pointed out that hush money and non-disclosure agreements are not inherently illegal, but the evidence would show that this was not a mere spin or communications strategy but a planned and coordinated conspiracy amounting to election fraud.
