In what could be a critical turn in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, his defense attorney Todd Blanche may have inadvertently bolstered the prosecution’s case during his closing arguments. Legal analysts suggest this could be a pivotal mistake. Blanche attempted to discredit Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and a key witness for the prosecution, by casting him as dishonest.
However, he portrayed David Pecker, former National Enquirer publisher, as credible, a move that MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin suggests was a gift to the prosecution. Rubin expressed her reaction to X, noting, “If I am prosecutor Josh Steinglass, I just did a happy dance.” This comment underscores the potential impact of Blanche’s strategy, which may have unexpectedly supported the prosecution’s narrative.
Pecker’s testimony is central to the case; he admitted to buying damaging stories about Trump ahead of the 2016 election, aligning with the prosecution’s argument that these actions were illegal in-kind contributions to Trump’s campaign. The charges against Trump involve the alleged falsification of business records to hide payments made to Cohen, who then paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about her past sexual relationship with Trump, told Raw Story.
This payment became particularly significant after the “Access Hollywood” tape leaked, showing Trump making derogatory comments about women. The fallout from the tape threatened Trump’s presidential campaign, prompting urgent efforts to suppress additional negative stories.
Cohen, alongside other witnesses, testified that Trump’s concerns escalated following the tape’s release, fearing further repercussions if Daniels’ allegations became public. The prosecution argues that the hush money payments were crucial in shielding Trump from additional scandals during the critical final weeks of the 2016 election campaign.
This trial segment underscores the complex dynamics and high stakes involved, as Trump’s legal team navigates the fallout of what some perceive as a tactical error in the courtroom. The case continues to draw significant attention, given its implications not just for Trump but for understanding the intersection of media influence, legal boundaries, and political campaigns.