Questions Looming for Trump Jurors: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to the online edition From the Political Deskis an evening newsletter bringing you the latest coverage and analysis from the election campaign, the White House and Congress from the NBC News political team.

In today’s edition, our senior national political reporter examines how the burden of reasonable doubt rests on jurors in Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial, plus senior political editor Scott Brand examines how congressional primaries have become more competitive in recent years.

To receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday, sign up here.

Jurors in Trump trial must decide whether prosecutors left a “mountain of” evidence beyond doubt

Jonathan Allen

Looking at the trial of former President Donald Trump, it’s easy to conclude that he probably did exactly what prosecutors alleged: bribe a porn star to protect his 2016 campaign, then cover it up with fake payment records.

Michael Cohen, the president’s former fixer, testified that he was Trump’s tool.

But “probably” is not the standard for jurors. Jurors have the burden of assessing whether there is a reasonable doubt. If any juror decides that the state has failed to meet that burden, they can dismiss that juror.

Have a news tip? Please let us know

As the evidence review began after four and a half hours on Wednesday, the question is whether the witnesses and documents presented by the prosecution leave any doubt as to Trump’s criminal liability.

Veteran prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors on Tuesday that they had seen “mountains” of evidence in the 34 charges.

Trump himself tweeted in 2018 that he made the hush money payments to Cohen, and Cohen bolstered that claim by testifying that the $35,000 a year in monthly payments from Trump’s personal trust were hush money and not “attorney’s fees” as listed in Trump’s business records, but rather top-ups to cover taxes and funds for other deals with technology companies.

Trump’s legal team argues that the records are true and that Cohen, who did little legal work, was in fact paid more than $400,000 a year as standby counsel.

They argue that Trump had no involvement with Cohen’s invoices or corporate vouchers approving the monthly payments, and that Trump’s signature on the checks is not evidence he knew what he was paying for.

There may be limited room for interpretation about the nature of the payment because Trump tweeted that Cohen received it as a quid pro quo, which he also described in documents he filed with the Office of Government Ethics while he was president.

Trump’s legal team, led by Todd Blanche, argues that Cohen was arbitrary in negotiating a deal to buy porn actress Stormy Daniels’ silence, meaning Trump had no knowledge of it. No one argues that Trump and Daniels didn’t meet in a hotel room in 2006. Trump denies Daniels’ sexual allegations. But that’s less important than whether or why Trump wanted to stop Daniels from making the allegations public.

Read more →

Congressmen still have a hard time winning primaries, but they’re feeling the pressure

By Scott Brand

The Republican Party’s mainstream wing scored a victory in West Texas on Tuesday night, when Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales narrowly defeated right-wing primary candidate Brandon Herrera in a runoff election.

Groups like the American Action Network, which works with House Republican leadership, poured a lot of money into supporting Gonzalez, ultimately helping to protect incumbents who voted to pass key legislation from potential agitators. With a slim House majority, that’s crucial. But the events show how much more pressure House members are feeling in the GOP primaries than they have in recent memory, and how that’s impacting the chamber’s legislative efforts.

While members of Congress do not often lose primaries, they have been caught up in fierce contests more frequently in the past decade. Between 2000 and 2008, more than three-quarters of members of Congress regularly won their primaries unopposed or by more than 90% of the vote.

View this graphic on nbcnews.com

But there was a steep decline after the Great Recession, largely due to anti-incumbency activism on the part of Republicans in the Tea Party and pre-Trump era.

View this graphic on nbcnews.com

Anti-incumbent candidates have suddenly seen a rise in support after essentially 0% in the past, meaning they need to be more careful about protecting their flanks and avoiding votes and issues that could anger their primary voter base. Gonzalez’s acts of betrayal in Texas include voting for bipartisan gun control legislation following the 2022 school shooting in his district, Uvalde. It’s fair to say such legislation is becoming increasingly rare, even if they are ultimately elected, as other lawmakers see that incumbents like Gonzalez face tough fights on such votes.

Notably, Democrats saw their own support drop in primaries against incumbent candidates in 2020. While data is still being collected for 2022, it will be interesting to see if this is a blip or the start of a new trend in Washington, where we are more attuned than ever to the power of primary voters.

That’s all from the Politics Desk. If you have any comments, please email us here. politicsnewsletters@nbcuni.com

If you are a fan, please share it with everyone. here.