In their opening statement of the New York criminal trial against Donald Trump, prosecutors presented a direct connection between the leaked “Access Hollywood” audio from October 2016 and Trump’s alleged payment of “hush money” to two women, including adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The prosecution’s argument centers around the claim that these payments constitute “election fraud, pure and simple.”
Legal experts have provided analysis on the prosecution’s opening arguments. Andrew Weissmann, a professor of law, MSNBC contributor, and former FBI General Counsel, summarized the prosecution’s strategy as placing the trial squarely within the context of election interference and corruption, echoing the indictments in Washington, D.C., and Georgia.
According to MSNBC’s Joyce Vance, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo outlined the case as a “criminal conspiracy and a cover up.” Colangelo stated that Trump “orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” by making false entries in his New York business records in order to conceal the payments to Cohen.
Colangelo emphasized the significance of these payments in preventing further damaging revelations about Trump’s alleged sexual infidelities, particularly in light of the “Access Hollywood” tape. He argued that “another story about sexual infidelity, especially with a porn star, on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape would have been devastating to his campaign.”
The prosecution’s strategy involves framing the payments as an illegal attempt to conceal information from the American public ahead of the 2016 presidential election, thereby potentially influencing its outcome. MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang described Colangelo’s opening argument as clear and well-organized.
Trump faces multiple criminal indictments, including 34 felony charges in the New York trial. The charges stem from allegations that he falsified business records to conceal payments of hush money to Stormy Daniels and another woman, with the alleged intent to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign. This could potentially be considered election interference.
Concerns have been raised that the Trump hush-money trial could establish a negative precedent for future presidential candidates who have engaged in similar schemes. Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt expressed worry that the trial might deter individuals from seeking high office due to fears of prosecution for past actions.
Legal experts have questioned whether Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, may have overstated his defense during opening statements. Blanche claimed that payments made to Cohen were not reimbursements for hush money but rather legal fees. Caroline Polisi, a legal analyst, expressed concerns that Blanche might struggle to substantiate this claim throughout the trial.
Alina Habba, an attorney for Donald Trump, criticized New York Attorney General Letitia James for moving to revoke the former president’s $175 million bond following a civil fraud judgment. Habba denounced the move as a “witch hunt” and claimed that Trump had done nothing wrong.
While Alina Habba attended a separate courtroom during the hush-money trial, members of Trump’s family have been notably absent from the courthouse. Fox News legal analyst Mercedes Colwin emphasized the potential importance of Trump’s family members appearing in court to support his defense.
