Former President Donald Trump is preparing to introduce a potentially precarious defense strategy in his ongoing Manhattan hush money criminal trial, according to former Manhattan prosecutor Rebecca Roiphe. During a discussion about MSNBC With host Chris Hayes, Roiphe delved into the details of Trump’s approach, which he described as “risky.”
Roiphe explained that Trump’s strategy could involve acknowledging the payment facilitated by his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, while affirming that the transaction was not illegal. This stance signals a move away from absolute denial toward a justification of legality, suggesting a nuanced defense that relies on interpretation of legal limits rather than denial of actions taken.
During the segment, Hayes asked about the direction the trial could take and what to expect from upcoming testimony. “We think we’re going to have a few more witnesses this week,” Hayes said, sparking a discussion about the evolving dynamics of court proceedings. The New York Times.
“I’m very interested in how the defense lines up,” Roiphe said. “So are you going to put all your eggs in the basket of, you know, this is all good, everything he did, he did it and it’s okay, or are you going to try to distance him from the things that Michael Cohen did? .”
“Yes,” she said. “This was the lawyer who was trying to go freelance and hoping to get a big subsequent reward from Donald Trump, and that’s why he did it. That is a possible defense. A lot of white collar criminals say, you know, it was my assistant who did it alone. Like my secretary. So you know, I could go with that defense.”
Roiphe expressed great interest in how Trump’s defense would play out, particularly whether they would focus their efforts on asserting the legality of the former president’s actions or whether they would attempt to disassociate him from Cohen’s activities. This approach could potentially involve portraying Cohen as if he had acted independently, or “gone rogue,” without Trump’s authorization or direct knowledge.
However, Roiphe highlighted a major challenge in distancing Trump from Cohen’s actions. She noted that Trump has made numerous public statements claiming the payments were made and defended their legitimacy. These statements are admissible in court and could complicate efforts to separate Trump’s actions from Cohen’s.
Roiphe’s analysis suggests that Trump’s defense could lean heavily on the argument that there was nothing inherently illegal about the transactions in question. Emphasizing the legality rather than the ethics or optics of the payments could be seen as a bold move, given the public and legal scrutiny associated with the case.
This strategic choice by Trump’s legal team underscores the complex legal and public relations challenges facing the former president. By potentially admitting the payment but challenging the illegality of it, Trump’s defense will have to navigate a delicate balance between legal definitions and public perception.
As the trial progresses, the effectiveness of this defense strategy will be closely monitored, with implications for both the legal outcomes of the case and the general public’s understanding of the issues at stake. Decisions made in the courtroom could have lasting impacts on Trump’s legal and political future, marking this as a crucial moment in the trial.