All Roads Lead To…

'That opens the door': Lawyer uncovers key problem with Trump's hush money defense https://t.co/NVWprcgnMB

— Raw Story (@RawStory) April 16, 2024

 …Trump’s testimony.

The catch and kill scheme came from Trump; not Stormy Daniels. It came from Trump, and he used Michael Cohen to implement it.

"Then once you have the agreement? What's it for? ...To conceal the agreement to unlawfully influence the 2016 election," Wiley said. "Why would Michael Cohen do that? How does he benefit from that?"

Cui bono, indeed? Unless, of course, you think the whole world conspires against you. But that’s hardly a legal defense.

Wiley then answered herself by arguing Cohen did not benefit. "Donald Trump is the one who benefitted," Wiley said. 

She then detailed the other witnesses who back Cohen's narrative. 

"Witnesses we believe will be lined up are the ones like Hope Hicks, who was on the campaign," Wiley said. "We know that the District Attorney is looking to establish Hope Hicks as a campaign operative actively and consistently in communication with Michael Cohen, including a call that Donald Trump was on." 

In comparison, there's only one witness who can testify to Trump's state of mind and it's a person whose testimony could prove fatal to his defense, Wiley argued. 

"The defense can suggest that this is for, by Michael Cohen and only in his own interest, which is kind of hard to do — unless Donald Trump tries to say, "It was all about Melania, I was just worried about Melania,'" Wiley argued. "But how do you get that evidence in? 

"He'd have to take the stand, and as we know, the minute he would do that, which is very hard to imagine happening, that opens the door for the prosecution to eat his lunch."

There it is. Not inevitable; but very hard to see how they put on a defense otherwise. Which is to say, very hard to see how they put on a defense at all.

There was some notice today that one part of the defense strategy is to preserve every possible error for appeal.  A sort of grab bag strategy; desperation from the start. Error that is merely error is of no account. Hoping the superior court will grab some error as a reason for a new trial (dismissal would take grave error), is like the military aphorism about hope: it is not a plan.

A case where you have to let Trump testify in order to have a defense, is not a hope either.  Of course, they know their case better than I do. But they don’t seem to have enough of a defense to reassure Trump. Or maybe he’s so vain/frightened he can’t be reassured.

At any rate, it does seem their best hope is a hung jury (and another trial). Or some error somewhere the Court of Appeals will use to remand for a new trial.

Time will tell. But it’s hard to imagine Trump not taking the stand; not with the defense he thinks he has.