During closing arguments at Donald Trump’s New York hush-money trial, prosecutors claimed that Trump’s covert efforts to suppress negative media coverage ahead of the 2016 election deprived the American electorate of their right to make an informed choice.
Joshua Steinglass, representing the prosecution, highlighted a crucial summer 2015 meeting at Trump Tower involving Trump, his then-attorney Michael Cohen, and David Pecker, the head of a major tabloid.
At this meeting, Pecker agreed to notify Trump and Cohen of any damaging stories that could impede Trump’s presidential campaign, allowing them to take steps to bury these stories.
This arrangement included suppressing allegations from adult film star Stormy Daniels regarding a purported affair with Trump a decade earlier.
“Three rich and powerful men, high up in Trump Tower, tried to become even more powerful by controlling the information that reached voters,” Steinglass asserted.
He emphasized that this scheme was one of the most significant contributions to Trump’s campaign, potentially pivotal in his election victory.
Steinglass detailed how the alleged scheme unfolded, particularly in response to negative headlines.
After the infamous Access Hollywood tape surfaced in October 2016, in which Trump made lewd comments about women, his campaign went into damage control.
Trump’s team labeled his remarks as “locker room banter,” but struggled as additional allegations of sexual misconduct emerged.
Daniels’ claim, which included an offer to keep quiet in exchange for money, presented a serious threat to Trump’s campaign strategy.
“You really can’t understand this case without appreciating the climate,” Steinglass remarked, adding, “He was negotiating to muzzle a porn star” who was threatening to go public.
“Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that the defendant was not only worse – she would have totally undermined his strategy for spinning the Access Hollywood tape.”
He concluded, “In simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive.”
Steinglass’s lengthy closing argument came after Trump’s defense team presented their case.
Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, argued that election conspiracies are commonplace and not inherently criminal.
Blanche insisted Trump did not falsify business records nor intended to sway the election by suppressing damaging news.
“It doesn’t matter if there was a conspiracy to try and win an election,” Blanche argued.
He stated that collaboration between media and politicians to promote a candidate is standard practice, adding that Pecker had long provided favorable coverage to Trump because it was beneficial for business.
Blanche also questioned the credibility of Michael Cohen, portraying him as untrustworthy and motivated by revenge.
He argued that Cohen’s testimony alone was insufficient to convict Trump, stressing that Cohen was the one who created the invoices in question.
“You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt based on the word of Michael Cohen,” Blanche asserted.
He dismissed the prosecution’s key claim that business records were falsified to conceal repayments for legal services, asserting that Cohen had indeed been providing legal services to Trump.
Steinglass acknowledged Cohen’s questionable credibility but argued that Cohen’s testimony offered essential context.
He pointed out that Cohen, unlike Pecker, faced consequences for his actions, suggesting Cohen’s animosity towards Trump was understandable given the circumstances.
“Michael Cohen is understandably angry,” Steinglass said.
“To date, he’s the only one who’s paid the price… the election law violations to which Cohen pleaded guilty were done at the direction of the defendant!”
In his rebuttal, Steinglass emphasized that the case centered on Trump’s actions, not Cohen’s character.
He framed Cohen as providing essential insight into Trump’s business practices, likening him to a tour guide through Trump’s inner workings.
Trump, who is poised to secure the Republican presidential nomination, faces charges of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to Daniels.
This trial is one among several legal battles Trump is fighting, with potential ramifications for his 2024 presidential campaign.
Throughout the trial, the testimony and evidence presented have captivated the public, yet seem to have little effect on Trump’s standing in the polls, where he continues to perform strongly against Joe Biden in key swing states. Trump denies all allegations.