Trial of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan has entered its second week, with a focus on allegations of a hush-money scheme to conceal his affair with Stormy Daniels. Legal experts suggest that the trial is more about election interference than a personal matter.
After a swift jury selection process, 12 jurors and six alternates were chosen last week, setting the stage for what promises to be a dramatic trial. Trump’s flamboyant personality, coupled with his mastery of stagecraft and propaganda, is expected to add to the spectacle.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo delivered a concise opening statement outlining the case against Trump, alleging that he orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election and then covered it up through false records.
More Read
“The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election,” Colangelo told the jury. “Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again.”
“It was election fraud, pure and simple,” he added.
The prosecution’s first witness, David Pecker, former chairman of the National Enquirer’s parent company, is expected to continue his testimony, shedding light on Trump’s alleged hush-money operation involving Daniels and Karen McDougal.
Trump’s defense, led by Todd Blanche, is portraying him as a relatable figure, emphasizing his humanity as a man, husband, and father. Blanche argues that Trump’s actions did not constitute a crime, suggesting that attempting to influence an election is a democratic practice.
“He’s a man. He’s a husband. He’s a father. He’s a person just like you and just like me,” Blanche said. He also argued that the counts against Trump were merely pieces of paper and that none of his actions amounted to a crime. “There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” he told the jury.
To gain insights into the trial’s trajectory and potential outcomes, Salon’s Chauncey Devega spoke with Kenneth McCallion, a former Justice Department prosecutor with experience in Trump-related cases.
McCallion suggests that Trump’s defense strategy may not be enough, especially if a pro-Trump juror influences the verdict. He also points out the risks Trump faces if he continues to pursue his defense vigorously, highlighting the possibility of damaging testimony from witnesses like Pecker, and advises Trump to consider a plea deal to avoid further legal troubles.
