The defense rested in the criminal trial of former President Trump on Tuesday, signaling that the proceedings are in the final stretch.
With Memorial Day looming, Judge Juan Merchan told jurors they would not be needed until next Tuesday, when he expects both sides to deliver closing arguments. Then, the former president’s fate will be left in the jury’s hands.
Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
The charges pertain to a $130,000 payment made to porn Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The money was intended to stop Daniels from going public with her allegation that she had sex with Trump a decade prior.
The former president’s then-attorney Michael Cohen paid the money to Daniels and was later reimbursed from Trump’s personal account and a Trump trust.
Prosecutors allege the payments to Cohen were falsely classified as legal expenses to conceal their true purpose — keeping Daniels quiet and thereby boosting Trump’s electoral hopes.
The defense lawyers contend no offense exists. They note that nondisclosure agreements are legal and say the payments to Cohen were correctly categorized.
Trump has repeatedly alleged that the case is politically motivated.
Here are five big moments jurors will have to weigh.
The Cohen-Trump Oval Office meeting
Cohen is now a sworn enemy of Trump — despite having said in the past he would take a bullet for his erstwhile boss.
One of the most vivid points of his testimony came when he recounted a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office in early 2017.
Cohen says that Trump “asked me if I was OK; he asked me if I needed money.”
According to Cohen, Trump also told him “make sure you deal with Allen” — a reference to Allen Weisselberg, then the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization.
Once Cohen had sent invoices for legal services rendered, he began receiving checks.
Cohen testified several times that there were no legitimate legal services being paid for here.
The Oval Office meeting is pivotal because, at least in prosecutors’ minds, it shows Trump’s awareness of — and involvement in — an allegedly illegal scheme.
The worst moments for Cohen’s credibility
Cohen was always destined to be a flawed witness. In 2018, he pleaded guilty to tax evasion and violations of campaign finance laws. Another guilty plea, for lying to Congress, followed.
But even if the star witness for the prosecution is a tarnished figure, criminal cases routinely feature key witnesses with blemished pasts.
There were two notable instances when the defense seemed to land hits on Cohen’s credibility.
One came Monday, when Trump’s lawyers delved into Cohen’s actions in an unrelated business deal.
In summary, Cohen used personal funds to pay $20,000 of $50,000 owed to a firm that had been hired by the Trump Organization— and then sought reimbursement of the full $50,000.
“You stole from the Trump Organization, right?” Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked. Cohen affirmed he had done so.
Another tricky — but less definitive — moment for Cohen came when doubts were raised about a brief phone call he made to Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, in 2016.
Cohen contends he called Schiller because he knew the bodyguard would be with Trump, and that a discussion about Daniels followed.
The defense highlighted evidence suggesting Cohen could actually have been calling Schiller to ask advice over harassing phone calls he was receiving.
Stormy Daniels’s story
The appearance of Stormy Daniels on the witness stand was perhaps the trial’s most sensational moment.
Trump had to sit in the courtroom listening to Daniels reveal explicit, and often mocking, details regarding the sexual encounter she says they had in 2006.
Trump denies he had sex with Daniels.
The bigger question for the jurors will again pertain to Daniels’ credibility.
The level of detail she ascribed to the liaison with Trump could make his flat-out denials of the encounter seem flimsy.
On the other hand, Trump’s lawyers noted how eager Daniels was to get paid before the 2016 election, reportedly because she felt the value of her story would decline if Trump lost.
One of Trump’s lawyers, Susan Necheles, accused Daniels of trying to “extort” Trump.
“False,” Daniels replied.
Hope Hicks, 2016 campaign and the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape
A central question in the case is whether Trump and his allies wanted to silence Daniels because of the presidential campaign — or simply to avoid personal embarrassment.
The testimony of Hope Hicks will be important here. Hicks was press secretary of Trump’s 2016 campaign and later became his White House communications director.
The prosecution argues that Trump’s team was acutely concerned about the possibility of Daniels going public because it had already been hit by the bombshell “Access Hollywood” tape.
The tape, which emerged in October 2016, was an old recording of Trump speaking about grabbing women by the genitals. At the time, it was expected to be catastrophic for his White House chances.
Hicks testified to the panic that gripped the campaign when she was approached for prepublication comment by the reporter who had the story, David Fahrenthold.
“I was concerned about the contents of the email. I was concerned about the lack of time to respond. I was concerned that we had a transcript, but not a tape. … There was a lot at play,” Hicks testified.
Hicks also acknowledged that the tape was plainly bad for the campaign.
Her testimony could help make the case that the motivation to suppress Daniels’s story was political, not personal.
A magazine executive and ‘catch-and-kill’
Testimony from former magazine magnate David Pecker could prove important.
Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, was less central to the Daniels saga than to a deal intended to silence another woman who said she had an affair with Trump, former Playboy model Karen McDougal.
The broad picture Pecker laid out could be the most vital thing of all, however.
Pecker explained the practice of “catch-and-kill.” The phrase refers to buying the rights to someone’s story with the intent of suppressing it rather than publishing it.
Pecker was candid about the ways the Enquirer helped Trump during the 2016 campaign, including with negative stories about his GOP rivals.
Pecker’s testimony provided a context that could render the prosecution’s overall story more easily believable.
