With closing arguments expected this week, Donald Trump faces the very real prospect of being found guilty in his 34-felony count hush money trial still underway in a Manhattan courtroom.
That is the opinion of noted legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin in a column for the New York Times on the morning where key witness Michael Cohen is expected to take the stand for one last day.
According to Toobin, even if the jury discounts former Trump lawyer Cohen's testimony, there is more than enough physical evidence for the jury to hand Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office a big win.
ALSO READ: How Fox News is lying about Trump’s trial
When it comes to evidence that the former president engaged in a business scam to hide the hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, Toobin asserted that the devil is in the details despite how "mundane" they might appear.
Noting that "juries surprise — sometimes," Toobin claimed, "even if the jury writes off Mr. Cohen or discounts his testimony, the government can still prove its case. Under the law, Mr. Trump can be convicted if he 'caused" the false records to be created. The jury has to believe that Mr. Trump knew any documents characterizing the payments as legal fees were false. "
"The key question the jurors will soon be considering is a straightforward one: Did the former president 'cause' the creation of false business records? The prosecution has answered half of that question. There’s no reason to doubt the records were false," he pointed out before adding, "The prosecution has done an excellent job of proving these details. Was the information on the documents false? Absolutely. Several witnesses support the government’s claim that Mr. Trump’s payments to the lawyer were not legal fees. Mr. Trump himself tweeted in 2018 that Mr. Cohen received a 'reimbursement" and said as much in a White House financial disclosure form."
RELATED: Trump hush money prosecutors have 'another legal card to play' as trial end nears: report
According to Toobin, the jury will get past the more sensational aspects of the trial — which "has unfolded like a north-of-the-border telenovela, with lurid tales of sex, spankings, hush money and silk pajamas" — and "the issue for these 12 Manhattanites is likely to come down to the prosaic business of invoices and vouchers, and how they came to tell a story that was different from the one that actually happened."
You can read more here.
