.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Opinion: Don’t call it a ‘hush money’ case
Opinion by Norman Eisen
Updated:
2:43 PM EDT, Tue April 16, 2024
Source: CNN
Judge Juan Merchan began the long-awaited Manhattan criminal trial of
former President Donald Trump on Monday by interviewing prospective
jurors. Debate has been raging about every aspect of this historic
trial – including what to call it. It is the first of four expected
criminal trials involving Trump, and the only one in American history
to feature a former president as the defendant.
Although it has long been referred to as the “hush money” case, the
judge’s first substantive words to the jury made clear that is wrong.
We should call it an “election interference” trial going forward.
When the judge , he said. “The allegations are in substance, that
Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with
others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.”
(Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied all wrongdoing in the cases
against him.)
Merchan’s point: The core issue in the trial that began Monday is not
the payments to adult film star to conceal her claimed affair with
Trump (he denies the affair took place). The core issue is why Trump
made them.
Paying hush money by itself is not a crime. The crime alleged in this
case is , as the judge detailed. That requires intent to . Here, the
prosecution alleges that the and also the state statute prohibiting
the “unlawful influence” of an election — i.e., election
interference.
That point was also cleverly hammered home during the first half of
Monday’s proceedings. The morning was devoted to resolving the
remaining legal disputes before the trial can begin, mostly about what
evidence could be used. Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass
the election interference theory by structuring his evidentiary points
in within that frame.
Steinglass began with issues relating to the alleged where Trump, his
former fixer Michael Cohen and David Pecker, former chairman and CEO of
American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer, allegedly
agreed to benefit Trump’s campaign through a “catch and kill”
scheme of buying salacious stories and then burying them to diminish
their ability to taint Trump’s presidential campaign.
Steinglass then raised legal issues that hit the other key moments as
the alleged scheme unfolded throughout 2015 and 2016, ending on the two
crucial players in the payoff: Daniels and Cohen. It was a virtuoso
summary of what we can expect at trial.
Of course, it’s one thing, as the judge also explained, for the DA to
make those allegations. It’s another thing to prove them, and
District Attorney Alvin Bragg must now do that. Trump, as the judge
reminded the prospective jurors, is innocent until proven guilty and
the case against him must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump
says he is innocent and will by all indications vigorously contest the
proceedings.
But we need to be accurate about what the accusation is that will now
be the subject of that contestation. , I contend that given the
indictment and the likely proof, using the “hush money” label
distracts from the main point of the case and diminishes its
seriousness. Eminent experts increasingly agree, includings and other.
The essence of the charges here, therefore, are as significant in their
own way as the ones concerning election interference in the 2020
campaign that have gotten more attention, a federal case brought by
special prosecutor Jack Smith and a Georgia case brought by Fulton
County DA Fani Willis.
Trump’s alleged 2020 attempt to overthrow our government distorts
perceptions of how serious the charges related to the 2016 election
are. We can’t allow the extreme nature of Trump’s later behavior to
change the benchmark for what is a serious alleged offense. The
Manhattan case meets that standard – and then some.
Election interference skeptics contend the charges here are for , the
2016 election concluded, to hide what happened the year before from
being revealed. How can we call this an election interference trial,,
if the election was already over when the 34 alleged document
falsification crimes occurred?
These questions misunderstand that the payment to Daniels was itself
allegedly illegal under federal and state law, and was plainly intended
to influence the 2016 election. Cohen, as an individual, was limited by
law to $2,700 in contributions to the campaign. Yet he , allegedly at .
That is why Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations
(in addition to other offenses), for which he was incarcerated. And no
one can seriously dispute that the reason he and Trump allegedly
hatched the scheme was to deprive voters of information that could have
changed the outcome of an extremely close election.
The legitimacy of American governance rests upon the honesty of our
elections. When information is withheld from voters, as Bragg alleges
happened here, that undermines democracy. Calling this trial a mere
“hush money” case risks minimizing what’s at stake. It is an
election interference one and we should say so.
DIR <- back to index