Manhattan Trial: Former President Trump on Trial for Alleged Business Records Falsification over Hush Money Payments to Stormy Daniels

New York City, New York United States of America
Cohen testified that he spoke to Trump and Keith Schiller about the hush money deal on October 24, 2016
Falsification of business records believed to have been an attempt to conceal nature of payments from public and potentially election finance regulators
Former President Donald Trump on trial for alleged business records falsification over hush money payments to Stormy Daniels
Payment of $130,000 made to Stormy Daniels by Michael Cohen in October 2016
Manhattan Trial: Former President Trump on Trial for Alleged Business Records Falsification over Hush Money Payments to Stormy Daniels

Former President Donald Trump is currently on trial in Manhattan for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments made during his 2016 presidential campaign. The case, brought by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, centers around a payment of $130,000 made to Stormy Daniels by Michael Cohen in October 2016 to secure her silence about an alleged tryst with Trump. The trial began on March 28 and is expected to continue into April.

On Saturday, May 19, a group of New Yorkers waited overnight outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse in hopes of securing one of the limited public seats available for each day's proceedings. Approximately 60 members of the press and one row of seats in the main courtroom are reserved for public attendance each day, with an overflow room available for additional viewers via video feed.

According to various sources, including ABC News and The New York Times, Cohen testified that he spoke to Trump and Keith Schiller about the hush money deal during a phone call on October 24, 2016. He also had multiple calls with David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg around the same time regarding the payment to Daniels. On October 25, Cohen testified that he spoke with Trump twice about setting up a way to pay Daniels off, and later transferred funds to her lawyer that day.

The non-disclosure agreement and side letter identifying 'Peggy Peterson' as Daniels and 'David Dennison' as Trump were signed on October 28, 2016. The falsification of business records in question is believed to have been an attempt to conceal the nature of these payments from the public and potentially from election finance regulators.

The defense team for Trump has cross-examined Cohen extensively during the trial, with some reports suggesting that they have attempted to undermine his credibility. However, several witnesses and documents support the prosecution's claim that these payments were not legal fees as labeled in the business records.

It is important to note that this article does not draw any conclusions or make calls to action. The purpose is simply to provide a factual account of the ongoing trial based on available information from multiple sources.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Are all the sources reporting this information reliable?
  • Is there any potential bias in their reporting?

Sources

80%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Trump team claims Michael Cohen’s testimony ‘collapsed’ under cross-examination. But is that true?

The Independent Oliver O'Connell Sunday, 19 May 2024 22:58
  • Unique Points
    • Michael Cohen testified that he spoke to Donald Trump and Keith Schiller about a hush money deal with Stormy Daniels during a phone call on October 24, 2016.
    • Cohen maintained that he believed he spoke to both Trump and Schiller during the call and insisted that the hush money deal was discussed.
    • Cohen had multiple calls with David Pecker and Allen Weisselberg around the same time regarding the hush money payment to Daniels.
    • Cohen testified that he spoke with Trump twice on October 25, 2016, during which they discussed setting up a way to pay Daniels off. Cohen then transferred funds to her lawyer later that day.
    • The non-disclosure agreement and side letter identifying ‘Peggy Peterson’ as Daniels and ‘David Dennison’ as Trump were signed on October 28, 2016.
  • Accuracy
    • Cohen maintained that he believed he spoke to both Trump and Schiller during the call and insisted that the hush money deal was discussed.
    • In their redirect examination, prosecutors are likely to try to mitigate Cohen’s testimony about the call. But if jurors think Cohen lied about the content of the call with Schiller and about whether he spoke to Trump, they could begin to doubt other aspects of his testimony.
  • Deception (30%)
    The author makes several statements that could be considered emotionally manipulative and sensational. The title of the article itself is sensational, implying that there is a battle between Cohen and Trump's teams in the trial. The author also quotes Will Scharf making statements about Cohen 'collapsing on the stand' under cross-examination, which could be seen as an attempt to manipulate readers into believing that Cohen's testimony is not credible. Additionally, there are instances of selective reporting where the author focuses on certain details of the trial while ignoring others. For example, the author mentions that Cohen had a one-minute and 36-second call with Trump's bodyguard but fails to mention that he also had two lengthy calls with Trump himself during which they discussed paying off Stormy Daniels. This selective reporting could be misleading to readers and give them a skewed understanding of the situation.
    • The jury in Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial heard how his former ‘fixer’ and attorney Michael Cohen was bombarded with prank calls in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
    • So, at this moment, I don’t think there's any further need to call into question Michael Cohen’s credibility, because I think he has none.
    • Michael Cohen, I believe, has just completely collapsed on the stand under withering cross-examination by president Trump’s trial team.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting attorney Will Scharf's statement that Michael Cohen has 'collapsed' under cross-examination and that the jury should acquit Trump based on this. However, the author does not provide any evidence or reasoning of their own to support this claim.
    • “Michael Cohen, I believe, has just completely collapsed on the stand under withering cross-examination by president Trump’s trial team.”
    • “So, at this moment, I don’t think there’s any further need to call into question Michael Cohen’s credibility, because I think he has none.”
  • Bias (95%)
    The author, Oliver O'Connell, expresses a clear bias towards the defense team in the Trump trial by framing their cross-examination of Michael Cohen as a 'victory' and suggesting that Cohen has 'collapsed on the stand'. The author also quotes Republican attorney Will Scharf making similar statements. However, there are counterarguments presented in the article from former Assistant US Attorney Andrew Weissmann and senior editor of Lawfare Roger Parloff, who dismiss the significance of this call and argue that it is not a critical moment for the prosecution's case.
    • However, over on MSNBC's Inside with Jen Psaki, former Assistant US Attorney Andrew Weissmann dismissed the significance of the call between Cohen and Mr Schiller.
      • Mr Scharf, a Republican candidate to be Missouri’s attorney general, said.
        • Signals from some pundits on Fox News have framed Thursday's exchange as a victory for Trump
          • So, at this moment, I don’t think there’s any further need to call into question Michael Cohen’s credibility, because I think he has none.
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          77%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          NY v. Trump to resume with continued cross-examination of Michael Cohen as trial nears conclusion

          Fox News Media Brooke Singman Monday, 20 May 2024 10:07
          • Unique Points
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (30%)
            The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. The author states 'Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records 34 times to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.' This statement implies that there is definitive proof of Trump's guilt and that he falsified business records. However, it does not mention any contradictory evidence or arguments from Trump's defense. Additionally, the author quotes Cohen stating 'Cohen confirmed that the contract, which Trump never signed, was lawful.' This statement is presented as fact without any context or consideration of potential motives for Cohen to say this. Furthermore, the article contains emotional manipulation through phrases such as 'scam' and 'historic and unprecedented criminal trial of a former U.S. president'.
            • Cohen confirmed that the contract, which Trump never signed,
            • Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records 34 times to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels,
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The author makes several appeals to authority by repeatedly referring to Cohen as the 'star witness' and mentioning his previous lies under oath. Additionally, there are instances of inflammatory rhetoric such as describing the trial as a 'scam' and Trump's defense attorney Todd Blanche accusing Cohen of lying multiple times.
            • Cohen, who is said to be Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s ‘star witness’,
            • Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and maintains his innocence. ‘I didn’t violate any law’, Trump said after court on Thursday. ‘This is a scam.’
            • Blanche also has highlighted Cohen’s history of lying under oath dating back to 2017, including to Congress about a Trump Tower Moscow project and federal investigators from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.
            • ‘You felt that you did not engage in tax fraud, but you had to plead guilty to protect your wife and family?’ Blanche asked. ‘Correct’, Cohen responded.
            • Blanche also accused Cohen of lying and insists he never spoke with Trump that day. ‘I always ran everything by the boss immediately’, Cohen responded.
            • Cohen maintains, based on the records that he was able to review, that he spoke with Trump’s former bodyguard Keith Schiller – but also believes he spoke with Trump about the Daniels deal.
            • Asked by Blanche whether he believes he played a role in Trump’s indictment from New York prosecutors, Cohen responded, ‘I took some credit.’
            • Cohen also testified that he wanted to be considered for a top role in the Trump administration, like attorney general or chief of staff, for ‘ego purposes.’
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          80%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Stakes are high for prosecutors to rescue Cohen testimony as Trump trial enters endgame

          CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Stephen Collinson Monday, 20 May 2024 04:00
          • Unique Points
            • There is no evidence that Trump is the victim of a coordinated attempt by President Joe Biden to weaponize the justice system against his rival, despite such claims by a parade of Republican lawmakers flocking to the Manhattan court in recent days.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (30%)
            The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. The author focuses on the potential damage to Trump's credibility caused by Cohen's testimony and the defense's cross-examination of Cohen, while downplaying or omitting information that could cast doubt on Cohen's allegations. For example, the article mentions that Trump denies having an affair with Stormy Daniels and has pleaded not guilty but does not mention that he has also denied directing Cohen to make the payment. The author also implies that Trump is trying to deceive voters by covering up the hush money payment, but this claim is based on New York state prosecutors' allegations and has not been proven in court. Additionally, the article uses emotional manipulation by describing Cohen as a 'potentially problematic witness' and 'obsessed with bringing Trump down', which could influence readers to view Cohen unfavorably without providing evidence to support these claims.
            • The biggest questions as Donald Trump's first criminal trial resumes Monday are whether his attorneys have destroyed the credibility of star witness Michael Cohen ...
            • But in a critical moment under cross-examination, Cohen appeared to trip up over an account of a call he’d previously said under oath was to discuss the payment. But the call, at least to begin with, appeared to be about another matter entirely.
            • The defense is also trying to portray Cohen as being obsessed with bringing Trump down and has brought up a stream of insults he flung the ex-president’s way on social media and television.
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Randy Zelin, a trial attorney and adjunct professor at Cornell Law School. This lowers the score to 85.
            • The Louisiana Republican also attempted to discredit Cohen, joining fellow Republicans in bolstering Trump’s own attacks after the judge threatened the ex-president with jail if he continued to infringe on a limited gag order.
            • Randy Zelin, a trial attorney and adjunct professor at Cornell Law School, said on CNN News Central on Friday.
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          98%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Meet some of the New Yorkers waiting overnight to get a seat at the Trump trial

          ABC NEWS SITE NAMES Name: ABC News Site Names URL: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-officially-blames-iran_106834435 ABC News Monday, 20 May 2024 10:10
          • Unique Points
            • Former President Trump is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records to hide the reimbursement of a hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels by his then-attorney, Michael Cohen, in order to boost Trump’s electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
            • The line for public seats inside the courtroom began at 6 a.m. on Saturday with Tina Johnson and slowly grew throughout the day.
            • Approximately 60 members of the press and one row of seats in the main courtroom are reserved for public attendance each day.
            • An overflow room with multiple rows of seats is available for public viewing via video feed.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Fallacies (90%)
            The article does contain some inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority, but no formal logical fallacies are present. The author reports on the public's interest in the Trump trial and the measures taken by court officials to accommodate this interest without adding any evaluative commentary. The author also includes quotes from individuals waiting in line for seats, presenting differing opinions on Trump's innocence without endorsing either view.
            • The disagreement didn’t seem to bother them much, as they chatted on Saturday evening about the 36 hours left before they could enter the courthouse.
            • It seems as though as the case progresses people get here earlier and earlier.
            • With the immense public interest in the case, court officials have established a system of lines to allocate seats in both the main courtroom where the proceedings take place and a nearby overflow room where the press and public can watch a video feed of the proceedings.
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          83%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Opinion | A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen

          The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. Jeffrey Toobin Monday, 20 May 2024 09:03
          • Unique Points
            • The Manhattan district attorney’s case against Donald Trump involves the creation of false business records related to hush money payments.
            • Michael Cohen, Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels to guarantee her silence about an alleged tryst with Trump.
            • Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment plus a bonus and additional funds for taxes, with business records falsely labeling the payments as retainer for legal services.
            • Several witnesses support the government’s claim that Trump’s payments to Cohen were not legal fees, including Trump himself in a 2018 tweet and a White House financial disclosure form.
            • The prosecution introduced a document detailing the reimbursement scheme by Allen Weisselberg, former CFO of the Trump Organization, which matched the $420,000 total Cohen received in 11 checks.
            • The payoff to Stormy Daniels was designed to help Trump win the 2016 election. If found motivated by election laws violation, this could elevate Trump’s crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.
          • Accuracy
            • Michael Cohen, Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels to guarantee her silence about an alleged tryst with Trump.
            • Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment plus a bonus and additional funds for taxes, with business records falsely labeling the payments as retainer for legal services.
            • Several witnesses support the government’s claim that Trump’s payments to Cohen were not legal fees, including Trump himself in a 2018 tweet and a White House financial disclosure form.
            • The payoff to Stormy Daniels was designed to help Trump win the 2016 election. If found motivated by election laws violation, this could elevate Trump’s crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.
          • Deception (30%)
            The article by Jeffrey Toobin contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author focuses on the sensational aspects of the case, such as Stormy Daniels' allegations of a tryst with Donald Trump and the false business records related to hush money payments. However, he fails to mention that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including making false statements to Congress and campaign finance violations. This omission is an example of selective reporting as it misleads readers by presenting only one side of the story. Additionally, the author uses emotional language when describing Daniels' testimony and her encounter with Trump, which is an attempt to manipulate the reader's emotions.
            • The prosecution has done an excellent job of proving these details. Was the information on the documents false? Absolutely.
            • Ms. Daniels’ story of that night was solid, including such details as her whacking Mr. Trump with a magazine when he condescended to her and his louche outfit when she arrived at his hotel room.
            • Mr. Trump himself tweeted in 2018 that Mr. Cohen received a ‘reimbursement’ and said as much in a White House financial disclosure form.
            • The key question the jurors will soon be considering is a straightforward one: Did the former president ‘cause’ the creation of false business records?
          • Fallacies (95%)
            The author makes several statements in the article that are not fallacies. However, there is one instance of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author states 'The prosecution has done an excellent job of proving these details.' This statement implies that because the prosecution has done a good job, their evidence must be true without question. However, this does not necessarily mean that the evidence itself is not subject to scrutiny or potential challenges.
            • The prosecution has done an excellent job of proving these details.
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication