Is it possible to use a lie to illuminate the truth? If the lie is told by serial liar Michael Cohen in the correct context, the answer is yes. Credit must be given to the prosecution in Trump’s criminal trial for pulling off this delicate maneuver.
On Monday, we finally got closer to a key element in this matter: the electoral campaign financing law. To convict Donald Trump of a crime, the jury must find that he falsified business records (or ordered them to be falsified) with “the intent to commit another crime.” Trump does not need to be convicted of any of these other crimes – in which case it could be tax fraud, interfering in an election or violating campaign finance laws – to condemn him. But he must have criminality in mind in at least one of these areas.
Late that morning, Susan Hoffinger – a prosecutor on her game – called Cohen’s attention to a letter written by her lawyer, Stephen Ryan, after Stormy Daniels’ secret story broke in the Wall Street Journal in 2018. At that time, Cohen was still in Trump’s camp, telling the world that he paid Daniels the $130,000 himself. In his letter, Ryan wrote: “The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution. »
Hoffinger asked, “Was that a true statement?” Cohen, in his new polite incarnation, replied, “No, ma’am. » He told the jury: Here is Cohen, who lies again. In other words, because Cohen was a notorious liar, it is more plausible than not that he lied when he said the payment was not a campaign contribution, to protect Trump and himself- even.
After a sidebar, Judge Juan Merchan turned to the jury and repeated instructions he had already given, during direct examination of Cohen, when the subject of his 2018 guilty plea in the case penal sentence which sent him to prison for 13 months was mentioned: “Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea does not constitute proof of Trump’s guilt.
The judge was basically telling the jury, “I know you might think these two guys both intended to commit this other crime, but you can’t use Cohen’s guilty plea to convict Trump.” »
As Norm Eisen, an expert on campaign finance law, told me during a break: “The jury will listen to the judge, but that’s like saying, ‘Don’t look at the elephant.’
To further press the point, Hoffinger asked, “Did Mr. Trump approve of the substance of these false statements by you?” That brought another “Yes, ma’am.”
The prosecution hit another break when Merchan refused to allow Bradley Smith, a Republican and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, to testify about his conservative interpretation of election laws. The judge said if he allowed that testimony — something the defense desperately wants — he would have to let the prosecution call an expert witness with his opposing interpretation. Merchan concluded that as a judge, it was his job — and his only job — to interpret how campaign finance law should be viewed by the jury.
Overall, this is an unsexy but significant victory for the prosecution.
