This is a special edition of Opinion Today on Donald Trump's hush-money trial, featuring insights from contributors to The Point, Opinion's blog. Today, Jonathan Alter reports from inside the courthouse.
It's on. On Monday morning, those of us fortunate enough to have a seat in the courtroom surely felt the hush of history as Judge Juan Merchan opened the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. This will be the first time since the founding of the American republic that a president of the United States has gone on trial in a criminal court. This case is about highly credible charges that Trump falsified business records as part of a scheme to silence an adult film star and tilt the outcome of the 2016 election. The prosecution's argument that this is a 2016 election interference case is prompting Trump to pursue his usual I'm-rubber-you're-glue strategy and claim that it's really the judge and the Manhattan district attorney who are interfering — in the 2024 election. But he won't be able to make that argument inside the courtroom. Trump is a domineering client, even when it's not in his interest, and he'll probably weaken his case by forcing his lawyers to back his ridiculous claim that the whole extramarital affair is made up. They'll have a better shot arguing that the hush-money payments were not illegal and Trump did not intentionally break tax and campaign finance laws. Among the witnesses expected to testify are Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime fixer turned major accuser, whose credibility will be a big issue; Hope Hicks, Trump's former press secretary, who could help corroborate Cohen's testimony; Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels), the porn star who received $130,000 in payments Trump is charged with laundering through Cohen; Karen McDougal, a former Playboy playmate of the year who also received hush money; and David Pecker, the National Enquirer chief testifying for the prosecution, whose catch-and-kill scheme to bury dirt on Trump will open a window on how tabloid journalism, well, changed world history. Trump claimed on Friday that he's willing to testify, but that may be just his usual posturing. If he rejects the pleading of his attorneys and takes the stand, cross-examination about his many lies would be admissible.
Beyond seeing its historical importance, those of us covering the Trump trial expected the first day to be relatively uneventful, with housekeeping details and rules of the road for jury selection. But it turned out that the morning also had the first stirrings of accountability for Trump. As part of the pretrial housekeeping, Judge Merchan delivered the so-called Parker warnings on courtroom behavior directly to the defendant, reminding him that he could be jailed if he disrupted the proceedings.
Trump, who earlier seemed to be dozing, muttered, "I do," when asked if he understood this and the other elements of the warning, which the judge was delivering to Trump for a second time — now orally — just to make sure it sank in. Then the former president had to sit and listen to a discussion of the admissibility of his years of witness intimidation, his arguably illegal social media posts and his efforts to use The National Enquirer to destroy his rivals. The jury didn't hear any of this, but Trump and everyone else in the courtroom did. All morning, Trump's side only won once: when the judge ruled that during the testimony of McDougal, there could be no mention in front of the jury of Trump's wife being pregnant and then being with a newborn (Barron Trump) at home when McDougal says they were having a long-running affair. At one point, Todd Blanche, Trump's lead attorney, saw that his slumped client was looking straight ahead, dejected. He reached out and patted Trump on the back.
The judge said he would hold a hearing on April 23 on the prosecution's motion that Trump be held in contempt of court and possibly jailed for three Truth Social posts attacking Cohen and Clifford, which seemed to be a clear violation of the judge's gag order preventing Trump from trying to intimidate witnesses. Judge Merchan indicated that he would reject Trump's go-to argument that he was just responding in kind. In the meantime, the judge was also concerned about the logistics of accommodating Trump's desire to be heavily involved in jury selection. Part of that process can take place in conference, outside the courtroom, if a potential juror wants to talk to the judge and the lawyers in private. The unspoken worry hanging over the courtroom: Would a potential juror feel intimidated if Trump, exercising his right, was there, too? The judge is working that out. He reminds me of the old deodorant ad for Ice Blue Secret. The bespectacled, snow-haired Merchan is "cool, calm and collected" and will do a terrific job in this trial. More on Trump's trial: Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com. If you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other issues, visit our Help Page or contact The Times.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monday, April 15, 2024
Opinion: Trump faces the law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment