Questions about Trump’s hidden funds criminal trial are answered

Reporters from The Hill provided insights into the ongoing trial of former President Trump’s hush money criminal case in New York, answering questions from the public.

Trump is currently facing trial for 34 counts of falsifying business records in relation to hush money deals that were negotiated during his 2016 presidential campaign. Despite pleading not guilty, Trump has consistently denied any involvement in any wrongdoing.

Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee delved into various aspects of the courtroom atmosphere and the underlying storylines of the case.

Here are some selected responses from the “Ask me anything” session:

Question: Did [Stormy Daniels’s] testimony actually hurt Trump’s defense?

Stormy Daniels’s testimony had the potential to either aid or impede Trump’s defense.

Daniels testified that she chose to sell her story in 2016 because she believed that with Trump running for public office, having a money trail would provide her with some form of protection.

In her comment, she connected the hush money scheme to Trump’s 2016 election campaign, a crucial step for prosecutors to elevate the charges from misdemeanor business record falsification to the felony level that Trump is currently facing.

In her testimony, she portrayed Trump in a largely unfavorable manner. If the jurors are persuaded that Trump felt the need to conceal his actions in order to secure victory in the 2016 election, this could potentially bolster the district attorney’s case.

During her testimony, there is a possibility that it could actually benefit Trump’s cause. The defense team made efforts to present her as motivated by financial gain and highlighted inconsistencies in her narrative. Interestingly, the jurors appeared to be less captivated by her testimony compared to previous witnesses. This could suggest that they were not fully convinced or influenced by her words.

In the end, it all boils down to how the jury perceives her credibility as a witness.

Question: If Trump were jailed, would the Secret Service be obligated to protect him inside? What would his incarceration look like? Has this ever happened before?

Hi there, it’s Zach! It’s quite unprecedented for a sitting or former U.S. president to be imprisoned. If such a scenario were to occur, we would be venturing into unfamiliar territory, and the outcome remains uncertain.

It would certainly be an extraordinary situation if there were plans for a secret funeral for Queen Elizabeth, like the “London Bridge” operation. Although there have been reports suggesting that the Secret Service and other agencies have had discussions about this, there is no defined plan that we know of. As for President Trump, he is entitled to Secret Service protection for life, even if he’s convicted. There is a proposed bill by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) to strip Secret Service protection from convicted felons, but it’s unlikely to gain much traction with Republicans controlling the House. In a recent interview, New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) was asked about the readiness of Rikers Island in case Trump were to be imprisoned. Adams responded that in the law enforcement business, they have to adjust to whatever comes their way and that they’ll be ready for any situation.

Question: Did you hear Trump cursing during the Stormy Daniels testimony? If so, what did he say?

Hello, this is Ella! I was sitting about four rows behind where Trump was seated and I didn’t hear him cursing during Daniels’s testimony. However, I have no doubt that it could be true.

The courtroom is as spacious as a basketball court, with Trump positioned facing away from the reporters. Positioned between the reporters and the former president are a number of law enforcement officers and members of his entourage. This week, his entourage includes his son, Eric, and his legal spokeswoman, Alina Habba.

During the trial, the judge discreetly summoned Trump’s lawyers to his bench for a private discussion, indicating that he likely heard Trump’s remarks. However, it remains unclear whether the jury or Daniels herself overheard these comments.

During previous trials where Trump was present, it was not uncommon for him to mutter remarks under his breath or shake his head disapprovingly. Both Judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over his civil fraud trial, and Judge Lewis Kaplan, overseeing the case of writer E. Jean Carroll, admonished him for such behavior.

Question: Why do you and others who publish about it keep calling this a “hush money” trial when it’s really about election interference? Could that many people be trying to make it sound less serious than it is, or do news outlets have small imaginations and vocabularies?

Hi, I’m Zach, and I often refer to this case as the “hush money case” in headlines and at the beginning of stories. That’s the name readers and my friends are familiar with when they ask me about it.

People often associate the term “election interference” with the indictments against Trump in D.C. or Georgia. However, it is worth noting that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) has been attempting to change the focus to election interference in recent months.

It appears that there is a growing understanding that Trump’s other criminal cases are unlikely to go to trial before the election. As a result, Bragg’s case has taken the spotlight. However, it is important to note that Trump is not facing any charges related to election law violations in this particular case. Therefore, we have opted to use the term “hush money” in headlines as a convenient shorthand, while providing a detailed explanation of Bragg’s narrative of “election interference” in our stories.

Question: How many more stern warnings do you think Merchan will issue before Trump wins the presidential election?

Answer:
Ella here, and I believe you’re talking about Judge Juan Merchan’s comments on Trump’s continuous disregard for the gag order. The gag order prohibits Trump from making any public statements about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff, or the judge’s family. However, he is still allowed to criticize Merchan and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

In his previous warning to Trump, Merchan made his stance quite clear. The judge emphasized that he has no intention of incarcerating the former president and acknowledged Trump’s status. Nevertheless, he also stated that he has a responsibility to fulfill, and any further assaults would amount to a direct assault on the rule of law.

I witnessed the moment when Trump and his attorneys were reprimanded by Merchan in the courtroom. It seemed to me that this was a clear indication that they were being given a final warning. However, it is ultimately up to Merchan to decide whether to continue with admonishments and fines, or to take the step of putting Trump in jail.

Question: Did Trump post and then delete his tweet about Stormy Daniels before or after this last, really very stern warning? Was it brought up in court at all, or ignored since he immediately deleted it, which is now being talked about at least as much as had he not deleted it?

Hi, I’m Zach! Let me give you some context in case you missed it. In the morning of Stormy Daniels’s testimony, there was a post on Truth Social by Trump that was later deleted. Here is what the post said:

“I was just informed about the identity of the witness today, and it’s quite alarming. There was no time for the lawyers to adequately prepare, which is unheard of. Never before has a judge conducted a trial with such obvious bias and partisanship. This judge is clearly corrupt and has strong conflicts of interest, going as far as infringing upon my First Amendment rights. To make matters worse, he is now threatening me with jail, even though they have no legitimate case against me. This is the consensus among the majority of legal scholars and experts. It’s puzzling why the mainstream media is not reporting on this blatant conflict of interest.”

The morning following the stern warning, the post in question has yet to be brought up in court. However, there is a possibility that prosecutors may address this issue later in the week.

Trump’s lawyers may argue that his post does not specifically mention Daniels by name and that he is not directly attacking her. This is in contrast to some of his previous violations of gag orders where he openly referred to her as a sleazebag, among other things.

We will keep a close eye on this matter as the court resumes its proceedings on Thursday and Friday.

Question: Do you believe that of all Trump’s antics are paving the way for appeal on the basis of inadequate defense provided by his attorneys? I can absolutely believe that Trump is actually that much of a malignant narcissist and idiot to believe the whole legal system is out to get him, that a gag order prohibits him from testifying and that simply calling something a “legal expense” nonstop actually makes it so. But I can also see it is very likely that he’ll blame his attorneys as he always does and claim they failed to provide adequate counsel.

Hey there! I’m Zach, and I appreciate your question. There’s quite a bit to discuss, so here are a few things I’d like to share:

Trump’s legal team boasts highly respected attorneys, including Susan Necheles, a seasoned defense lawyer who once held the position of president at the New York Council of Defense Lawyers. Necheles receives praise from legal observers and commentators, even those who typically criticize Trump. Meanwhile, Todd Blanche, another lead attorney, is a former federal prosecutor who made the bold decision to leave a prominent international law firm in order to represent Trump. By doing so, he is essentially putting his career on the line to advocate for the former president.

Claiming inadequate defense is a challenging task, especially when dealing with lawyers of high caliber and expertise. It seems unlikely that such an argument would hold up in court. However, President Trump has shown a willingness to attribute major losses to his legal team and make changes when necessary. In fact, there have been three notable instances where he has done so recently.

(1) Trump replaced his top Georgia lawyer the day of his surrender
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4168988-trump-replaces-top-attorney-in-georgia-case/
(2) one of Trump’s lawyers left after the former president grew frustrated with his handling of the E. Jean Carroll civil lawsuits
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4409344-trump-lawyer-joe-tacopina-withdraws-from-ex-presidents-cases/
(3) Trump shook up his classified documents team after being charged
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4042432-trump-shakes-up-legal-team-in-documents-case-after-indictment/

With these recent changes, it raises the question of whether Blanche and Necheles will continue to represent Trump if the trial does not unfold in his favor.

Question: What has security been like in and around the courthouse while the trial is going on?

This is Ella! Security measures in and around the courthouse are stringent.

Reporters and members of the public who wish to enter the courtroom need to arrive a few hours before the trial commences. They must wait in a designated line where they sign in with law enforcement and court staff before proceeding inside. Similarly, those attempting to enter the overflow room or, if available, secure a seat in the courtroom follow a similar process in a separate line.

Upon entering the premises, all individuals are subjected to a thorough security protocol. This entails passing through two separate checkpoints, where metal detectors are utilized and bags are meticulously inspected. Non-water beverages are strictly prohibited and disposed of accordingly. On average, the entire screening procedure occupies approximately 20 minutes, provided that circumstances are favorable.

In the courtroom, law enforcement officers line the gallery, with secret service agents seated near the front, behind where Trump is sitting. While phones are not allowed in the courtroom, reporters are permitted to use their computers to carry out their work.

The streets outside the courtroom are obstructed by gates and law enforcement officers. People passing by are requested to detour around the barricaded section. However, the public park outside the area remains accessible to everyone.

Question: I haven’t seen anyone break down how prosecutors used their preemptive jury strikes, even though they clearly used all of their available strikes. Without giving identifying information on any jury members, can you help us understand who the prosecution thought it was worth striking from the jury, even if the judge thought they were fit to serve?

For instance, it seems like the defense used their strikes on people who they’d found posted anti-Trump jokes on Facebook. Did the prosecution go for people who had posted pro-Trump content?

Hi, this is Zach! I had the opportunity to observe the jury selection process for a week. During this time, I noticed that Trump’s lawyers were actively reviewing the social media profiles of each prospective juror. Their goal was to identify any posts expressing strong opinions against Trump. It was evident that they were making efforts to eliminate individuals who had shared anti-Trump content on their social media platforms.

Question: I’m also curious how Trump’s demeanor was in the court room. Did he seem worried? Was he smug? Did roll his eyes? Like give us some color.
Did he actually fall asleep?

Hi, I’m Ella! Trump appears to be irritated and, at times, quite angry about being in the courtroom. He has mastered the art of wearing a stern expression as he enters, often focusing straight ahead but occasionally observing the reporters or sketch artists. Earlier this week, I noticed him smiling at a sketch from one of the artists as he entered. When leaving, he typically scans the gallery, occasionally making eye contact with reporters.

During his testimony, his behavior fluctuates. At times, he appears drowsy, flipping through printed-out articles to stay engaged. However, there are moments when he becomes extremely attentive, closely observing the testimony and discussing it in hushed tones with his lawyers. One such instance occurred yesterday, particularly during Stormy Daniels’ appearance on the stand.

Question: This case has been going on for weeks now and it seems like little progress has been made. How much longer do you think the case will continue? How many more witnesses are expected to testify? Is Trump going to take the stand?

The trial is progressing well and is expected to reach the jury by the end of May or early June. As for the number of witnesses yet to testify, no official list has been released, making it difficult to provide an exact count. However, we can make some educated guesses.

Gina Rodriguez, Stormy Daniels’s manager, and Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s director of Oval Office operations at the White House, might be called as witnesses during the ongoing state’s case. It is anticipated that Michael Cohen will also provide testimony and may spend several days on the witness stand.

Family members, business associates, and White House aides may testify in Trump’s defense case.

Taking the stand is not a common occurrence for criminal defendants, so if Trump were to do so, it would be quite rare. However, jurors have made a commitment to not view his decision not to testify as an admission of guilt. While legal experts have reservations about Trump testifying, the final decision lies in his hands.

Read More:

• Zendaya’s Third Met Gala Outfit Proves She’s Unbeatable
• Susan Buckner, known for her role in ‘Grease’, passes away at age 72