Trump trial latest: Prosecution ‘turns defence lawyer’s argument on its head’; Trump’s

Let’s briefly look at the core arguments of both the defence and prosecution, now that both teams have concluded their closing arguments. 

As we saw earlier, the judge stressed the words of the lawyers do not count as evidence in the trial, and told the jury only they could make their minds up based on the evidence.

But below are the summaries from both sides:

Defence

Todd Blanche spent much of his time attempting to discredit the witnesses put forward by the prosecution. 

In around two and a half hours, Mr Blanche laid out 10 instances he said should constitute reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.  

In summary, Mr Blanche’s arguments were: 

1. Invoices – These show there was no evidence that Donald Trump had intent to defraud when sending money to Michael Cohen, or that he knew about them;
2. Vouchers and cheques – There is no proof that Trump knew about the voucher scheme worked by Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff;
3. No intent to defraud – Trump tweeted what happened and submitted evidence to the Office of Government Ethics;
4. No intent to conceal – No falsification of business records;
5. Election influence – No evidence that Trump had anything to do with whatever agreement was reached to try to influence the election;
6. Dino Sajudin – Not a “catch and kill” as the story was untrue;
7. Karen McDougal – The former Playboy model did not want her story shared, so again not a “catch and kill”;
8. Stormy Daniels – Her story was already public;
9. Evidence manipulation – Citing texts between Melania and Donald Trump, where phone records do not show a responsible call, a Keith Schiller text message and David Daus testimony regarding Cohen’s phone;
10. Cohen as witness – He is “embodiment of reasonable doubt”, and “is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true”.

Mr Blanche said the jurors should “expect more” from the witnesses put forward by the people, highlighting several “red flags” – particularly targeting Michael Cohen. 

“Michael Cohen is the GLOAT,” he says. “He’s literally the ‘greatest liar of all time’. He has lied to every single branch of Congress. He has lied to the Department of Justice.”

He adds: “You cannot rely on him, all those lies under oath, all those lies, that is reason enough to walk away.

“You cannot send someone to prison based on the words of Michael Cohen.”

That final sentence landed him in a bit of trouble – with Judge Merchan issuing the jury with a curative instruction – a direction to correct an erroneous statement.  

Overall, Mr Blanche’s closing statement mirrored much of his work during the trial – emotive and sometimes erratic in direction – but at least partly tied together by the end. It focused on casting reasonable doubt – rather than outright refuting key pieces of evidence. 

Prosecution 

Joshua Steinglass could not have posed a more contrasting figure with his counterpart. 

He took his time – much to the frustration of many inside the courtroom – going through documents in painstaking detail with the jury once again. 

He attempted to prove the following:

1. That there were false business records;
2. That the false business records were intended to cover up a conspiracy related to the 2016 election;
3. That the defendant himself was involved.

In his mind, if the people were successful in proving all three, the jury must then find Trump guilty. 

For the first, he went through a number of documents, receipts, invoices, cheques and more with the jury – really honing in on the paper trail of the case.

Mr Steinglass turned to several witness testimonies to build a picture of the second – that false records were intended to cover up an election conspiracy.

He spent several minutes explaining why Michael Cohen was a credible witness – before knocking that argument down by pointing out that it doesn’t matter anyway – because other witnesses say the same thing. 

“You don’t need Michael Cohen to connect these dots, but as the ultimate insider, he can help you do just that,” he said, before adding he found it “difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration”.

“This case is not about Michael Cohen. This case is about Donald Trump.”

In order to try and prove that Trump himself was involved, Mr Steinglass carefully navigated his way through various documents and snippets of witness testimony – doing his utmost to discredit the defence’s own lines along the way.