Trump is headed to the first of his expected criminal trials on April 15. He’s facing felony counts related to his payments to Stephanie Clifford.
By Sam Dorman, EPOCH TIMES April 14/24
The first of former President Donald Trump’s criminal trials is set to begin on April 15 after New York prosecutors accused him of falsifying business records related to an alleged affair with adult performer Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels.
The trial is occurring on the heels of a $175 million bond payment the former president posted in a civil fraud lawsuit, also in New York.
The impending trial raises the prospect that he could face additional penalties, including a criminal conviction, before the 2024 election.
Experts have offered differing views regarding the eventual verdict, but the New York Clifford case is generally considered the least consequential of his four criminal cases. President Trump is currently facing potential prison time in his Washington and Georgia election-related cases, and his Florida documents case, none of which appears to have a certain trial date; some could be after the election.
The four trials also raise legal issues that could influence how future presidents and candidates make decisions. New York Judge Juan Merchan just added yet another gag order to the list that President Trump has encountered in Washington and his civil trial, prompting questions about free speech for leading candidates facing trial.
As in his other cases, President Trump has attempted to assert some form of presidential immunity from the charges he faces. On April 3, Judge Merchan rejected an immunity-related request from President Trump, stating that he waited too long to assert it. Regardless, the trial’s subject matter and proximity to President Trump’s immunity appeal at the Supreme Court will likely heighten political tensions and ignite debate over presidential power.
The Charges
Roughly a year before the scheduled trial date, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought a 34-count indictment charging President Trump with falsifying business records. They relate to alleged hush money payments made to Ms. Clifford ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The indictment was unusual in that it didn’t specify the crime for which his charge would be elevated to a felony. Mr. Bragg has said that “the indictment doesn’t specify it because the law does not so require.”
The district attorney has suggested violations of three possible additional crimes: federal campaign finance laws, a state election law, and a tax fraud law. The Justice Department never charged President Trump for federal campaign finance violations.
According to Mr. Bragg, the charges arise from an alleged $130,00 payment made by President Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, to Ms. Clifford at the then-candidate’s request. That money came from $420,000 that the Trump Organization paid Mr. Cohen through a series of monthly checks allegedly disguised as part of a retainer agreement.
The district attorney lays out two other alleged hush money payments. Although all the charges relate only to the payment to Ms. Clifford, the prosecutors’ depiction of these other deals appears to be an effort to boost their case that President Trump intended to conceal another crime.
Mr. Bragg’s office alleged that Mr. Cohen also worked with American Media Inc. (AMI), the media company behind the National Enquirer, to arrange a payoff of $150,000 for Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, in exchange for her silence about her alleged affair with President Trump.
A separate, $30,000 agreement was set up between AMI and a Trump Tower doorman who alleged to have information about a child the former president purportedly fathered out of wedlock, Mr. Bragg’s office alleged.
President Trump has denied these alleged affairs.
What Alvin Bragg Has to Prove
To secure a felony conviction, Mr. Bragg must convince a jury that President Trump not only falsified the relevant records but also did so with the intention of concealing another crime.
It’s unclear whether Mr. Bragg will even need to cite the second crime during the trial. Attorneys told The Epoch Times that Mr. Bragg doesn’t need to give the jury a specific campaign finance or tax violation to secure a conviction.
“If I were teaching this case, I would certainly use it as an example of an overzealous prosecutor improperly dividing a single misdemeanor into multiple charges, and then turning them into felonies by purporting to enforce federal campaign finance laws when the [Justice Department] already declined the case,” John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times.
President Trump could defend himself by claiming that he made the payments to prevent his wife, former first lady Melania Trump, from hearing about the affair allegations.
In a motion to dismiss rejected by Judge Merchan, President Trump’s attorney said that the payments were, in fact, part of a retainer agreement for legal services.
Trump to Testify
A longstanding question in President Trump’s legal battles—and his political career more broadly–is how much his unique speaking style helps or hurts him.
Premium Picks
New Yorkers Silently Worrying Over Ramifications of Trump Ruling
5 Key Questions for Supreme Court in Trump’s Immunity Appeal
After a Pause, Jan. 6 Arrests Are Now Sharply Increasing
On April 12, President Trump said during a press conference that he will testify.
“I would testify, absolutely. It’s a scam … that’s not a trial,” he said.
Mr. Shu told The Epoch Times that it would be better for President Trump not to testify in Judge Merchan’s trial.
“I’m sure Alvin Bragg is praying … that Trump will take the stand,” he said, “because then he can cross-examine him, he can pick him apart.”
Mr. Shu also said that Mr. Bragg would love an opportunity to charge President Trump with perjury as he did Allen Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization chief financial officer. Mr. Weisselberg was sentenced on April 10 to five months in prison.
“Trump has the right to remain silent, and as much as the former president may not want to, I think he should exercise it in the criminal trial,” Mr. Shu said.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times: “At the trial, Trump will probably take the stand, both for political and legal reasons. The entire country will be watching the trial, and if he doesn’t take the stand, people will think he is guilty.”
President Trump could request that the jury receive the option to convict him of the “lesser-included” misdemeanor offenses instead of felony offenses. In New York, Class A misdemeanors such as this carry a maximum penalty of one year in prison. However, Mr. Bragg couldn’t have brought the counts as misdemeanors since the two-year statute of limitations had already run out.
Mr. Shu told The Epoch Times that although President Trump legally could make that request, he thinks it is unlikely.
“I’m quite doubtful if Trump would even want it or allow his lawyers to argue it,” he said.
“When he testifies, Trump will likely deny having sex with Daniels and say he paid Daniels to save his family from the embarrassment of what she might say about him,“ Mr. Rahmani told The Epoch Times. ”That is a legal defense because it reduces the felony to a misdemeanor.
“It’s certainly possible that Trump successfully reduces the charges to misdemeanors. The tax and campaign finance violations are a legal stretch and juries could easily reject those arguments.”
Michael Cohen Back in Spotlight
In this case and his Georgia trial, President Trump has the disadvantage that codefendants have taken deals acknowledging guilt in the schemes he’s alleged to have perpetrated.
AMI entered a non-prosecution agreement in 2018 in which it acknowledged payment to ensure Ms. McDougal “did not publicize damaging allegations” about then-candidate Trump.
“For Trump to say this money was purely a retainer, I think there would have to be some additional evidence,” Keith Johnson, a criminal defense attorney, told The Epoch Times. “That’s where Michael Cohen is going to be the state’s best witness.”
In March, Judge Merchan rejected a motion by President Trump to exclude testimony from Ms. Clifford and Mr. Cohen. It’s unclear how the jury will view the two, given that one is an adult performer and the other has admitted to lying to Congress.
Heritage Foundation Vice President John Malcolm told The Epoch Times that Mr. Cohen’s credibility is “on the surface, quite suspect” and that it will be “eminently attackable.”
“[Mr. Cohen] is going to have to be thoroughly cross-examined as being an incredibly biased witness—the one who has a bone to pick with the president, someone who had been to federal prison, someone who has been on multiple media outlets talking about his disdain for the former president,” Mr. Malcolm said.
“That’s where the case is going to be won or lost, in my opinion.”
Gag Order
Another confounding factor is the somewhat personal nature of President Trump’s dispute with Judge Merchan, whose daughter works for a political consulting firm that helps Democrats.
“It’s very unfair that we have this judge who hates Trump and has tremendous conflict, as you know,” President Trump said during a press conference on April 12.
Judge Merchan recently altered his initial gag order to add himself and his daughter, Loren Merchan. President Trump had called out Ms. Merchan on TruthSocial, noting her association with various Democrats and accusing her of posting a picture of him behind bars on social media platform X.
“It is not linked to her email address, nor has she posted under that screen name since she deleted the account,” he said. “Rather, it represents the reconstitution, last April, and manipulation of an account she long ago abandoned.”
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin O’Brien told The Epoch Times: “Judges have been issuing gag orders for months. I haven’t seen too much of an impact on [President Trump’s] conduct.”
President Trump, he said, has been “disruptive.”
“He’s going to do everything in his power to prevent [the trial] from starting, and I think the judge may have to hold him in contempt, and fine him substantially,” he said.
Mr. O’Brien said he doubted, however, that Judge Merchan will put President Trump behind bars for his purportedly disruptive conduct.
Because President Trump’s cases involve high-profile political figures, gag orders could restrict his ability as presumptive GOP nominee to discuss individuals who are criticizing him publicly, hampering his campaign.
President Trump also received a gag order in his New York civil trial. And Judge Tanya Chutkan issued one in Washington, but that order was substantially pared down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Possible Outcomes
Experts differed when asked by The Epoch Times for their predictions in the so-called hush money case.
Mr. Shu criticized the legal basis for the case and opined on the potential jury.
“From the reality perspective and not the strictly legal one, the chances that Alvin Bragg will get a jury of people who detest Donald Trump are very high,” he said.
Mr. Chamberlain said he is skeptical that a jury will convict President Trump.
“You need to find a unanimous jury,” he told The Epoch Times. “New York isn’t D.C. in the same way. There are still plenty of Republicans who live in New York. So I don’t think it’ll be as straightforward to convict him as it would be in a jurisdiction like D.C.”
On April 8, an appeals court denied President Trump’s attempt to move the trial out of Manhattan. He had raised concerns about his ability to get a fair and impartial jury in the city. Two other attempts to delay the trial also failed on April 9 and 10. The first was related to Judge Merchan’s gag order, and the second was related to presidential immunity.
The trial is likely to coincide with the Supreme Court’s hearing oral arguments in President Trump’s immunity appeal—scheduled just 10 days after the trial begins. But a decision in that case won’t likely be rendered until the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June. It’s unclear how a positive ruling in that appeal would affect the New York trial—if at all, given the timing.
Even if he is convicted, it seems unlikely that he would face jail time and the associated impediments to his campaign. The charge he faces is a class E felony, the lowest tier in New York state. Each count carries a maximum sentence of four years, but the Associated Press reported that newspaper archives have historically shown that defendants usually don’t receive prison time for the felony.
An acquittal, though perceived as unlikely, would be a victory for President Trump heading into his other trials and the November election.
Implications for 2024
If the jury convicts President Trump, it will make him the first former president to be both criminally indicted and convicted of a felony. Democrats and President Biden’s campaign will likely seize on a possible conviction to fuel the left’s narrative that President Trump disrespects the law.
It’s unclear how many Americans would switch their vote if President Trump were convicted in this case and others. His reputation as “Teflon Don” appears to have proven true in some respects during the 2024 campaign cycle.
“He’s just immune and the normal rules don’t apply to him,” Mr. Rahmani told The Epoch Times. “Anyone else, even if there was an indictment … they’d have to resign. He just gets more strength. It’s just, it’s fascinating.”
Despite courts’ gag orders and multiple indictments, President Trump has once again beat his Republican primary competitors by large margins, and he is also ahead of President Biden in polling regarding head-to-head matchups.
Conservative author Henry Olsen told The Epoch Times that President Trump’s “reputation among voters is pretty set.”
“I do not think that this particular trial is going to change things very much if he is convicted. I do think that somehow if they were to procure a mistrial … I think that could help him because it goes against the grain,” he said.
“I don’t think it would change a lot of opinions about his character, but it might shift a little bit of the framing around the nature of the lawsuits.”
@EvRe1
Thanks for that granular summary. I wasn’t aware of the Saudi connections in the matter.
@EvRe1
Wow. I had no idea about the ens of the case. Thanks.
Did Trmp pay her money. This si pertinent.
Did he write it iff as a company expense. That’s what the case is about.
Here is what you need to know about this travesty of a case:
Stormy Daniels is actually a political operative working for the Democrat party and has been from at least 2009. It’s public knowledge and was even reported by NBC and the Huffington Post. Stormy Daniels & Michael Cohen were sleeping together. Cohen took money from a rogue Trump-hating Saudi Prince – tied to Avenatti – to frame Trump. (Prince Alaweed bin Talal).
Stormy Daniels was going to run for Senator in 2009. Her real name is Stephanie Gregory Clifford. She was arrested on July 25th, 2009 and released on a $1000 bond. In a drug crazed rant, she assaulted her husband. (who is now her ex-husband). So she was a drugged up porn star, arrested for domestic violence.
Her attorney, Michael Avenatti, worked for Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel and is connected to a Saudi crime cartel.
Stormy Daniels signed 5 documents stating that she NEVER slept with Trump. All of that is public knowledge.
Avenatti took over her case in January 2018 after she signed a 5th document that stated she NEVER slept with Trump. He convinced her that she really did sleep with Trump and there was much money to be made going after him.
This whole hoax was concocted by Cohen. Cohen was having the affair with Stormy. Cohen gave money to Stormy (without telling Trump). Then Cohen, Stormy and Stormy’s lawyer (Avenatti) manufactured the story that Trump was having the affair with Stormy and paid her hush money. Not to mention, Avenatti owed $5 million plus in federal back taxes. He needed cash.
They all tried to “Get Trump!” but here’s how it worked out for them: 1. Avenatti is still in prison as a convicted felon. 2. Cohen was convicted as a felon and has served his time. 3. Stormy was forced to admit the affair never happened, and the courts ordered her to pay $620,000 to President Trump.
Despite all this, the Democrats still arrested President Trump and charged him criminally for “paying Stormy.”
Does this sound like anything but a show trial, a complete farce? This is pure election interference and attempted political assassination.
All these details are public knowledge however, after the trial the mainstream media will run with the story that Trump is a convicted felon.
Avenatti himself, even called in to MSNBC from prison saying the case is a farce!
for further details:
https://tierneyrealnewsnetwork.substack.com/p/i-will-gladly-go-to-the-clink?publication_id=728707&post_id=143336672&isFreemail=false&r=hevwr&triedRedirect=true