According to legal expert Harry Litman, lawyers for former President Donald Trump will face challenges in his hush money trial as they are prohibited from criticizing Trump in any way. The trial involves allegations of Trump arranging hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal to cover up alleged affairs. Litman suggests that Trump’s legal team is on a difficult path as they are unable to offer a defense that portrays Trump negatively and cannot claim that he is “a little sleazy, but not a criminal.” This limitation may make it challenging for Trump to defend himself effectively in the trial.
During the first week of testimony in the trial, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker detailed his collaboration with Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen to suppress negative stories about Trump in order to bolster his 2016 presidential campaign. The prosecution alleges that Trump, Pecker, and Cohen engaged in a cover-up to interfere with the election by concealing damaging information about Trump. Litman noted that the defense’s attempts to question Pecker’s credibility did not yield significant results, as Pecker was viewed as a credible witness with insider knowledge of the alleged conspiracy. The prosecution is strategically using witnesses who are perceived as neutral and have credibility to build their case against Trump.
Former prosecutor Karen Agnifilo, who previously worked in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, described Pecker’s testimony as “extremely damaging” for Trump. She highlighted how Pecker’s testimony outlined a criminal conspiracy to suppress negative stories in violation of election laws to influence the election outcome. The prosecution is strategically presenting Trump-friendly witnesses to establish the credibility of their case without apparent bias or animosity towards Trump. Agnifilo noted that the prosecution’s approach of using credible witnesses who have no personal stake in the case enhances the strength of their case against Trump.
Litman expressed concerns about the defense’s inability to offer a comprehensive defense for Trump in the trial due to the limitations imposed on criticizing the former president. Litman suggested that denying all allegations, including the existence of affairs with Daniels and McDougal, may not be a sustainable defense strategy for Trump. The jury may find it challenging to believe that all accusations are false, particularly given the constraints on the defense’s ability to portray Trump in a negative light. By focusing on challenging the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses rather than presenting a cohesive defense strategy, the defense may struggle to effectively counter the prosecution’s arguments.
Overall, the limitations on criticizing Trump and presenting a negative defense pose significant challenges for his legal team in the hush money trial. The prosecution’s approach of relying on credible witnesses who have no apparent bias against Trump strengthens the case against the former president. The defense’s efforts to undermine the credibility of witnesses, such as Pecker, may not be sufficient to counter the prosecution’s allegations of a criminal conspiracy to influence the election. Litman’s assessment of the defense facing a “hard road” in the trial underscores the complexities and obstacles that Trump’s legal team must navigate in defending against the charges related to hush money payments.
