Trump's future depends on answering these three critical queries.

Trump's future depends on these three queries being answered.

### Diary of the Trump Trial

Donald Trump's Manhattan court case: CNN's legal analyst, Norm Eisen, reports on the trial's events for this CNN Opinion series. Read earlier installments:
Trump's defense ends on a disastrous witness
Trump's defense made a case against Michael Cohen. Was it enough?
Trump's defense rocked Michael Cohen. Did it knock him out?

Numerous issues are at stake in this trial, but it finally boils down to addressing these three main ones through the lengthy closing arguments from defense counsel Todd Blanche and Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass.

Please remember Donald Trump is accused of 34 felony document falsification charges in an alleged tax fraud scheme to hide the origin of the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, adult film actress, to keep her silent from the 2016 presidential election.

Were the 34 allegedly false records actually false?

The primary focal point here is whether the 34 business records at the heart of the case contain false information.

Todd Blanche argued that the prosecution had not provided enough evidence for this basic issue. He said these documents describe the payment to Daniels using the phrases "legal expenses," "retainer," and "for services rendered," and the proof provides evidence for their accuracy. If these words accurately characterize the payments, then it's not a crime; if they're false, then the records containing them are also inaccurate.

Blanche highlighted Cohen's testimony and documentation about his legal work on various Trump Foundation cases, the Summer Zervos matter, and the creation of former first lady Melania Trump's figurine at Madame Tussaud's. And Blanche claimed that when Cohen testified about this work being gratuitous or insignificant, he was lying-an underlying theme of the defense's closing.

However, in his closing remarks, Steinglass countered by emphasizing that Cohen's legal work on these mentioned cases engulfed less than 10 hours. This would imply a fee of $42,000 per hour! And Steinglass pressed back on Blanche's focus on the fabled October 24, 2016, Cohen call to Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller. He argued that Cohen was reliable, and there was ample time within a 96-second exchange to discuss both prank calls received by Cohen from a teenager and the Daniels deal. In a courtroom accentuation, Steinglass re-enacted the call and demonstrated his perspective (and utilized less than 50 seconds to do so).

Additionally, Steinglass relied on his strongest argument: People's Exhibit 35, the handwritten notes about the "grossed up" payment to Daniels as recorded by ex-Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg and Cohen. Steinglass maintained these notes showed that the hush money payment meant to keep Daniels mum about her alleged affair with Trump during the presidential campaign amounted to an illegal campaign contribution that was later paid back to Cohen for taxes.

Steinglass argued this was nothing like "legal expenses" or a "retainer" for "services rendered" by Cohen from Blanche's perspective. Trump, according to the prosecutor, "didn't really pay a lawyer," but rather, "he paid a porn star by channeling money through a lawyer."

"Documents don’t lie," Steinglass explained, "and they don’t forget," adding that the prosecution team had the upper hand in this debate.

Did Trump possess the intent to defraud?

Even if the documents are indeed false, the prosecution must still prove that Trump had the fraudulent intent - that is, deliberately lying in his company's documents. This represents the trial's second most critical turning point in closing arguments.

Again, Blanche claimed that the prosecution had not proven its case due to the absence of sufficient evidence without Cohen's testimony on Trump's role in this scheme. Blanche asserted that Trump openly admitted the reimbursement, indicating no intent to deceive.

However, Steinglass objected, pointing out that these disclosures were just "repeated admissions" that it was a reimbursement and hence support the evidence that Trump knew the records were inaccurate when they claimed the payments were revenues. (Also, many of these declarations were made after the scandal erupted in 2018, implying Trump's innocence.)

And Steinglass emphasized that the jury could trust other proof, as well as their shared sense, instead of depending entirely on Cohen's testimony to ascertain Trump's intent.

During the trial, Steinglass stated that this particular case has "more corroboration than you can possibly imagine." To back up his claim, he referenced various pieces of evidence. For instance, records showing Cohen's calls and meetings with Trump, along with testimonies from witnesses who have spoken about how closely Trump monitors his finances. Additionally, he pointed out the damning fact that nine of the checks featured Trump's signature.

Regarding the issue of intent, Steinglass acknowledged that the prosecution faced some challenges. However, he was confident that they had made a strong enough case to convince the jurors. But if there's any potential for a juror to hang the jury, leading to a mistrial, it might be at this point.

Focusing on the main focus of the trial, Steinglass reminded the jurors in his post-lunch summation that the entire case revolves around a conspiracy and a cover-up - one aimed at corrupting the 2016 election and another intended to conceal the payment made to Stormy Daniels.

Blanche, the defense attorney, probably sensed this was coming, and therefore he spent a significant amount of time in his morning closing argument defending against this argument. He insisted there must be something illicit about the efforts to influence the election, and he asserted that the District Attorney had not provided sufficient evidence to convict Pastor plea beyond a reasonable doubt. Blanche drew attention to the testimonies of Hope Hicks, former White House communications director, and Madeline Westerhout, Trump's former personal secretary. According to him, Trump sought to protect his family from Daniels' allegations of an affair, which is legal. He further argued that nondisclosure agreements and campaign protection of the sort discussed in this case are reasonably ordinary and not illegal.

In response, Steinglass went through the entire case chronologically, starting from August 2015. He meticulously detailed the alleged conspiracy's unlawful methods. These methods involved FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act) violations, as Cohen reportedly advanced hush money in excess of the legal contribution limit. Additionally, there were potential tax law violations since the reimbursements were misclassified to hide the true nature of the payments and Cohen's creation of other false documents. The prosecution managed to make a compelling argument, benefiting greatly from the relevant laws.

Even if Trump's motive was to protect his family, the law still allows for a conviction if the prosecution can prove that the conspiracy was intended to help his election campaign as well. In the end, both parties presented their arguments compellingly, with the prosecution holding the upper hand.

Even though there are possible loopholes like the intent question that could cause a single juror to hold out, a hung jury appears unlikely after the closing arguments.

Read also:

The jury needs to consider whether the use of terms like "legal expenses," "retainer," and "for services rendered" in the documents accurately portray the payments, as argued by Trump's defense attorney Todd Blanche. This is crucial in determining if the 34 business records at the heart of the case contain false information.

The prosecution's argument, as presented by Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass, hinges on the idea that the payment to Stormy Daniels was not a matter of "legal expenses" or a "retainer" for "services rendered," but rather an illegal campaign contribution that was later paid back to Cohen. This perspective challenges Blanche's assertion and could significantly impact the jury's opinions on the case.

Source: edition.cnn.com