‘Trial full of tabloid characters could turn out to be beneficial for Trump’

It is the first ever criminal case against a former American president: the hush money case in which Donald Trump is on trial. The substantive hearing has now been going on for two weeks and “is taking place against a backdrop of entertainment, porn and scandal,” says Lachlan Cartwright, reporter at The Hollywood Reporter, who is in the courtroom every day. “It’s a unique process, with a cast of tabloid characters.”

But despite all the spectacle, the question remains whether the case will have serious consequences for Trump’s election chances. Regardless of whether he is convicted.

Many Americans believe that Trump should not be tried for this.

The case revolves around hush money that Trump allegedly paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels and two others through his then lawyer and right-hand man Michael Cohen in 2016. Daniels is said to have received $130,000. This is not prohibited, but according to the prosecutor, Trump paid the amount from his campaign coffers. That is not illegal either, provided he had reported the payment to the electoral commission.

However, then the payment would have become public, and according to the prosecutor, Trump wanted to prevent this to protect his election chances. He would therefore have included the payments in the accounts as legal costs. “A cover-up tactic,” in the words of the prosecutor.

Former lawyer Cohen is at the center of the case and is now a witness against Trump. “He hangs like a black shadow over the trial,” said journalist Michael Isikoff, who has written a book about one of the other cases against Trump. “Cohen seems to be the prosecution’s star witness.”

If it can be proven that Trump committed forgery to influence the outcome of the election, this is a criminal offense. In that case, he could receive a maximum prison sentence of four years.

It remains to be seen whether the jury will agree with the prosecutor’s reasoning. “Normally, falsifying accounting records would only be considered a minor violation,” Isikoff says. It is difficult to prove that Trump wanted to influence the 2016 elections. “Many Americans believe Trump should not be tried for this.”

In advance, this charge was seen as “marginal”, says Isikoff, especially compared to the other “much more serious” cases pending against Trump. These include Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. That lawsuit will likely not be heard until after the November presidential election.

The hush money case, on the other hand, will likely be over in a few months. The jury will then make a decision well before the elections. But because the prosecutor’s argument seems quite shaky, there is a good chance that the jurors will acquit Trump or not reach unanimity on conviction, Isikoff thinks.

And that could turn out to be beneficial for Trump. “It would be a huge victory for Trump and for his campaign. He can then say, look, they’re going after me for all kinds of things, and they can’t convict me because this is all made up.”

Cartwright believes that the prosecutors have a strong case and defend it convincingly. “They brilliantly laid out how Trump tried to influence the election.”

He points to the testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer newspaper and a former friend of Trump. Stormy Daniels is said to have approached Pecker with her claim that she had an affair with Trump. She reportedly said that she wanted to go public through the National Enquirer. Pecker then allegedly contacted Cohen about hush money.

Cartwright describes what was said in the lawsuit: “Cohen and Trump asked Pecker: What can you do for our campaign? And he said: I will be the eyes and ears. I will buy negative stories from the market and we will buy negative stories publishing about your rivals, while at the same time publishing stories that promote Donald Trump. That is the heart of this matter.”

Twelve jurors must decide whether they consider the evidence sufficiently proven and whether Trump is guilty or not. Cartwright: “I can see their faces. They’re obviously very committed, but it’s hard to tell what they’re thinking.”

Isikoff thinks – despite his doubts about the prosecutors’ arguments – that it is ultimately more likely that they will find Trump guilty. “His lawyers will certainly appeal and try to drag out the case. A conviction will not be fatal to Trump’s chances in the elections, I expect.”