Editor’s note: Norman Eisen is a CNN legal analyst and editor of .Trying Trump: A guide to his first election interference criminal trial” He served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Donald Trump’s first impeachment and trial. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.read more opinions On CNN.
CNN
—
Judge Juan Marchan began former President Donald Trump’s long-awaited Manhattan criminal trial Monday by interviewing potential jurors. Debate rages over every aspect of this historic trial, including what to call it. This is the first of four criminal trials expected to involve Trump, and the only trial in U.S. history to feature a former president as a defendant.
The case had long been called a “hush money” case, but the judge’s first substantive words to the jury revealed that to be a mistake. From now on, it should be called an “election interference” trial.
As the judge explained the case to prospective jurors, he said: “The allegations are substantial that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal agreements with others to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election.” He has maintained his innocence and denied all wrongdoing in the case against him.
Marchan points out: The central issue in the trial that began Monday is not the payment made by adult film star Stormy Daniels to hide her alleged affair with Trump in October 2016. denies).The core issue is why Trump created them.
Paying hush money is not itself a crime. As detailed by the judge, the crime alleged in this case is felony document forgery.It requires intent to conceal, aid, or engage another crime. Prosecutors here argue that the intent was to violate federal campaign finance laws, as well as state laws prohibiting “unlawful influence” or interference in elections.
This point was hammered home earlier in Monday’s trial. The morning was spent resolving remaining legal disputes, mainly about what evidence could be used, before the trial began. Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass deftly developed the election interference theory by assembling the evidence chronologically within that framework.
Steinglass said Trump, former fixer Michael Cohen, and David Pecker, former chairman and CEO of American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer, They began with issues related to an alleged Trump Tower meeting in August 2015 in which they allegedly agreed to benefit the Trump campaign. A “murder” plot to buy a vile article and bury it to weaken Trump’s ability to smear his presidential campaign.
Mr. Steinglass then revealed that the alleged plot unfolded from 2015 to 2016 and ultimately involved Mr. Daniels and Mr. Cohen, two individuals who played key roles in the payoff. It also raised legal issues that affected the moment. It was a nice summary of what we could expect at trial.
Of course, as the judge explained, it is a different matter for the DA’s office to make such claims. Proving them is another thing, and District Attorney Alvin Bragg must do it now. As the judge reminded prospective jurors, Trump is innocent until proven guilty, and the case against him must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. President Trump has said he is innocent and that he intends to vigorously contest the proceedings no matter what.
But now we need to know exactly what the disputed charges are. In my new book, I argue that given the indictment and likely evidence, using the “hush money” label distracts from the point of the case and dilutes its seriousness. ing. Prominent experts, including our nation’s leading constitutional scholars and other prominent legal commentators, increasingly agree.
Therefore, the nature of the charges here relates to election interference in the 2020 election campaign, which has received more attention, including a federal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and a Georgia case brought by the Fulton County Attorney’s Office. is as important as the incident. Fanny Willis.
President Trump’s alleged attempt to overthrow our government in 2020 distorts the perception of how serious the charges related to the 2016 election are. We cannot allow the extreme nature of President Trump’s subsequent actions to change the standard of what constitutes a serious criminal charge. The Manhattan case meets that criteria, and then some.
Election interference skeptics say the charges stem from falsifying documents by the Trump Organization in 2017. rear The 2016 election was ended in an attempt to hide what happened the previous year from exposure. They ask how this can be called an election interference trial, since the election was already over when the 34 charges of document falsification occurred.
These questions misleadingly suggest that the payments to Daniels are themselves illegal under federal and state law and were clearly intended to influence the 2016 election. Mr. Cohen was personally limited by law to campaign contributions of $2,700. However, he allegedly transferred $130,000 at President Trump’s direction to benefit his campaign.
Get our free weekly newsletter
That’s why Mr. Cohen pled guilty to violating federal campaign finance laws (among other crimes) and was jailed for those charges. And no one would seriously dispute that the reason he and Trump allegedly devised this plan was to deprive voters of information that could change the outcome of a very close election. .
The legitimacy of American governance depends on the integrity of elections. Democracy is undermined when information is hidden from voters, as Bragg claims happened here. Calling this trial a mere “hush money” case risks trivializing what is at stake. This is election interference and we must say so.
