Former President Donald Trump faced allegations of an extramarital affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016.
It was revealed that Trump had deputized Cohen to act on his behalf in 2015, weakening the defense's argument.
The defense questioned the credibility of Michael Cohen and focused on a separate issue involving a teen prankster.
The prosecution argued that Trump falsified business records and directed Cohen to make the payment.
Trump is alleged to have orchestrated a hush money payment to Daniels through Michael Cohen, his longtime fixer, to prevent damaging revelations from reaching the public during the presidential campaign.
In the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign, former President Donald Trump faced allegations of an extramarital affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels. To prevent these damaging revelations from reaching the public and potentially hemorrhaging support from female voters, it is alleged that Trump and his associates orchestrated a hush money payment to Daniels through Michael Cohen, his longtime fixer. The following article provides an unbiased account of the closing arguments in the New York trial regarding these allegations.
The prosecution presented a comprehensive case against Trump, emphasizing that he was intimately involved in the negotiations and payments made to Daniels. Prosecutors argued that Trump falsified business records by recording and reporting false entries to conceal this payment from public knowledge. They also highlighted the testimony of key witnesses, including Cohen himself, who claimed that Trump had directed him to make the payment.
The defense team countered these arguments by questioning the credibility of Michael Cohen and focusing on a separate issue involving a teen prankster. They argued that there was no evidence of an election interference conspiracy and maintained that the payments were for legitimate legal services provided by Cohen.
However, the defense's argument was weakened when it was revealed that Trump had deputized Cohen to act on his behalf in 2015. This made it impossible for the defense to claim that Cohen was acting alone in the Daniels payment.
The jury is now set to deliberate and reach a verdict on whether or not Donald Trump is guilty of falsifying business records related to this hush money payment.
Former President Donald Trump is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal during the 2016 election.
Trump’s defense team gave their closing arguments first, focusing on the credibility of Michael Cohen and questioning why certain witnesses did not testify.
Prosecutors allege that Trump knew about the settlement negotiations with Daniels and Daniels’ allegations of an affair, and that he directed Cohen to make a payment of $130,000 to her.
Cohen is a key witness in the case and has testified that Trump was involved in the payments to both Daniels and McDougal.
The defense argued that the payments were for legitimate legal services provided by Cohen, and that there is no evidence of an election interference conspiracy.
Prosecutors spent six hours rebutting the defense’s arguments, emphasizing the importance of Cohen’s testimony and presenting evidence such as bank statements and handwritten notes detailing the payment scheme.
Accuracy
Defense argued that Michael Cohen is a liar and his testimony is not trustworthy.
Prosecutors presented ‘a mountain of evidence’ to prove Donald Trump falsified business records to cover up a damaging story about an alleged affair at the end of the 2016 election.
Cohen testified that he spoke with Keith Schiller on October 24, 2016 about a payment to Stormy Daniels. Defense accused Cohen of lying about the call and focusing on a separate issue involving a teen prankster.
Prosecutors argued that there is plenty of corroboration of Cohen’s testimony from documents and the testimony of others, particularly former AMI chief David Pecker.
Trump is guilty of false business records when he makes or causes a false entry in his business records.
Deception
(50%)
The article contains examples of deceptive practices by omitting key details and presenting selective information. The author, Ximena Bustillo, states that Trump has called the trial “election interference” and falsely claims a partisan conspiracy against him. However, no sources are disclosed to support these claims. Additionally, the article highlights certain witnesses and pieces of evidence that support the prosecution's case while omitting other relevant information, such as the fact that Allen Weisselberg, Don Jr., or Eric Trump were not called as witnesses by the defense despite being Trump Organization executives at the time. This creates a one-sided reporting perspective and leads to deceptive practices.
Trump has called the trial “election interference”
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
The author Ximena Bustillo demonstrates a slight bias towards the prosecution in her article by focusing more on their closing arguments and evidence presented than the defense's. She also uses language that could be perceived as depicting Trump and his team in a negative light, such as 'historic trial pushes closer to an end', 'falsely claiming a partisan conspiracy against him', and 'commonplace for celebrities and candidates to work with media organizations'. However, the author does not use any extreme or unreasonable language towards either side.
]Prosecutors allege that Trump knew about a settlement negotiation with adult film actor Stormy Daniels to keep her allegations of an affair out of the press ahead of the 2016 election and that Trump directed his former 'fixer' Michael Cohen to make a settlement payment of $130,000 to her.[]
Prosecutors spent 6 hours walking the jury through every part of their case and refuting claims made by the defense.
The defense gave closing arguments first, focusing on Michael Cohen's credibility issues.
Prosecutors presented 'a mountain of evidence' to prove Donald Trump falsified business records to cover up a damaging story about an alleged affair at the end of the 2016 election.
Defense accused Cohen of lying about the call and focusing on a separate issue involving a teen prankster.
Pecker testified that Trump deputized Cohen to act on his behalf in 2015, making it impossible for the defense to claim Cohen was acting alone in the Daniels payment.
Trump is guilty of false business records when he makes or causes a false entry in his business records, according to prosecutors.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The authors use emotional manipulation by referring to Cohen as the 'Tom Brady of lying' and the 'GLOAT' or 'Greatest Liar of All Time'. They also use selective reporting by focusing on Cohen's testimony without providing any evidence connecting Trump to the payment outside of it. The authors also make statements about prison, which are not relevant to the case and could potentially influence jurors.
The defense and prosecution gave their closing arguments in Trump’s New York hush money trial, spending many hours late into the evening Tuesday offering the jury diametrically opposed stories about the payment made to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 and the subsequent reimbursement to Cohen the following year.
Blanche told the jury it’s clear they were talking about the teen prankster because Cohen hung up and texted Schiller about the situation then followed up the next morning. That is perjury.
Prosecutors objected to Blanche’s commentary about prison – and Merchan admonished him for saying it, because jurors are not allowed to consider penalties, that’s up to the judge – but Blanche had made his point regardless.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors use inflammatory rhetoric by referring to Michael Cohen as the 'Tom Brady of lying' or the 'Greatest Liar of All Time'. They also make an appeal to authority by stating that Cohen is a liar and should not be trusted based on his past convictions. However, they do not provide any direct evidence or examples from the trial to support these claims.
]The defense and prosecution gave their closing arguments in Trump[s] New York hush money trial, spending many hours late into the evening Tuesday offering the jury diametrically opposed stories about the payment made to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 and the subsequent reimbursement to Cohen the following year.[
Prosecutors told jurors on Tuesday they[ve] seen a [mountain of evidence][to prove that Donald Trump falsified business records in order to cover up a damaging story about an alleged affair at the end of the 2016 election.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche was up first, and he spent much of his two-hour closing argument attacking the credibility of Cohen, Trump[s] former fixer.
Blanche told the jury it[s clear they were talking about the teen prankster because Cohen hung up and texted Schiller about the situation then followed up the next morning.
At the end of his closing argument, Blanche again returned to Cohen. [His words cannot be trusted].
Steinglass tried to rebut Blanche[s] allegation about the October 24, 2016, call with a bit of role-playing.
The prosecutor put his thumb and forefinger to the side of his head and acted out a theoretical call Cohen could have made where he talked to both Schiller and Trump.
Bias
(80%)
The authors use language that depicts Cohen as a liar and the 'Tom Brady of lying' or the 'GLOAT' multiple times. This is an example of bias through language.
Blanche told the jury it’s clear they were talking about the teen prankster because Cohen hung up and texted Schiller about the situation then followed up the next morning. That is perjury.
He accused Cohen of lying directly to the jury, on top of the lies he was convicted of telling.
He came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly.
In 2016, Trump allegedly tried to conceal a payoff to porn star Stormy Daniels in order to prevent a hemorrhaging of support from female voters in the final weeks of his presidential campaign.
Cohen is accused of being involved in hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and allegedly participated in crucial meetings and phone calls with Trump that were not captured in other testimony or records.
Prosecutors emphasized that many of Cohen’s core allegations were echoed by documents and other witnesses, including former White House aides and longtime Trump Organization executives.
Cohen paid Daniels’ attorney $130,000 through an LLC in 2016. Trump was not connected to the documents.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the prosecution's position and ignores details that may cast doubt on their case. For example, the article states that 'Steinglass described some documents relating to the hush money payments as the prosecution’s ‘smoking guns.’' However, it fails to mention that these documents have been called into question by Trump's legal team due to issues with their authenticity and chain of custody. Additionally, during closing arguments, both sides made statements that stretched the bounds of truth. For instance, Blanche claimed that Cohen was not the centerpiece of the case when in fact he is a key witness and his testimony has been used to corroborate other evidence. Steinglass also described some documents as 'the prosecution’s smoking guns' even though they have not been proven to be authentic. Lastly, there is emotional manipulation in the article as it portrays Cohen as a 'proven liar' and Trump's former fixer who turned against him, while also describing the release of the Access Hollywood tape as a 'doomsday event' for Trump's campaign.
Steinglass described some documents relating to the hush money payments as the prosecution’s ‘smoking guns.’
That’s why, he said, the revelation that Daniels was preparing to go public with her story about an affair with Trump was a crisis; that at the same time he was trying to shore up support with women, ‘he was negotiating to muzzle a porn star’ over allegations of an extramarital affair.
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by stating that the documents and other witnesses support Cohen's testimony. However, they also rely on Cohen's testimony in several key instances where it is not corroborated by other evidence. This creates a potential inconsistency and could be considered an attempt to have it both ways.
][The prosecution] described some documents relating to the hush money payments as the prosecution's 'smoking guns'. '[This was not Michael Cohen telling you,' he said, 'This was in the document itself.][] Prosecutors relied on Cohen's testimony in several key instances to describe crucial meetings and phone calls with Trump that were not captured in other testimony or records.
The defense argued that the Access Hollywood tape was not a crisis for Trump's campaign, despite multiple witnesses describing the 'pandemonium' caused by its release. The author countered this by stating that 'the campaign was in damage control mode and trying to spin the tape as 'locker room banter.''
The defense attorney Todd Blanche stated that '[Trump] never thought it was going to cause them to lose their campaign and indeed it didn’t.' However, the author later states that 'that at the same time he was trying to shore up support with women, [Trump] was negotiating to muzzle a porn star over allegations of an extramarital affair.'
Donald J. Trump's lawyer argued for his client's acquittal in the hush-money trial
Prosecutor accused Trump of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal involving a porn star
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors use inflammatory rhetoric by describing the defense lawyer's argument as 'wielding a scalpel to attack nearly every strand of the criminal case against the former president' and the prosecutor's argument as 'a sweeping rebuke of the former president, seeking to persuade the jury of 12 New Yorkers that Mr. Trump had falsified records to cover up a sex scandal involving a porn star'. They also use dichotomous depiction by describing the defense strategy as 'needing only to establish reasonable doubt' and the prosecution strategy as 'needed to persuade the jury to accept a narrative that, Mr. Steinglass argued, could lead to only one ending: guilty on all counts.'
]The defense needed only to establish reasonable doubt,
