For those who have just arrived back from dogsledding in Antarctica, Donald Trump has been in court in New York for the past three weeks, charged with falsifying business records of his company by mischaracterizing a 2016 “hush money” payment to a porn star as an attorney’s fee.

It’s a tawdry story, that would end most political careers, but I will offer my guess about the outcome at the end. Indeed, in his summation, the prosecutor argued that if the payments that this trial is about were known before the 2016 election, Trump might never have been elected.  Nevertheless, this trial is by far the least significant of three other more serious cases against Trump that seem unlikely to be heard before the next election: mishandling classified documents, attempting to overturn 2020 election, and attempting to manipulate the 2020 election in Georgia.

The rules in New York do not permit television cameras at trials, so everything we have learned about the New York case has come from reporting by the major newspapers and TV news stations. Needless to say, there is bias, both ways, in these reports, so it’s difficult to get an objective assessment of the evidence or the summations. I, too, am biased. I’m a Republican who voted for Trump in 2020, but now believe—because of what he did in attempting to overthrow the 2020 election—that he is too dangerous to hold the presidency. That view, of course, will color my predictions at the end.

As required by New York law, Trump has attended every day of the trial, which has given him an opportunity to provide his views to the public, both before and after each trial day.  Trump had a right to testify, but after saying that he would, never did. Given the number of false statements he utters every day, it’s a shame; the cross-examination would have been hilarious.

The evidence against him in this case is reasonably strong, but far from conclusive, and can be summarized as follows. As the US approached the 2016 election—with Trump the GOP nominee—a woman with whom he’d recently had a secret affair was threatening to tell her story to the media. Trump’s solution was to pay $130,000 for her silence, which he did through his company, rather than his personal resources.

This was a mistake. Although It’s not illegal to pay “hush money,” there was a problem what to call this payment on the company’s records. After some discussion, it was decided to disguise the payment as a “legal fee” for his counsel, Michael Cohen, who in turn was to pay the hush money to the woman involved. Cohen, however, was the only witness to Trump‘s assent to this arrangement.

If the payment to Cohen was really a legal fee, Cohen would have a tax liability, so the amount of the payment had to be “grossed up” to cover Cohen’s tax liability, as well as the hush money payment, and in the end the evidence at trial showed that Trump signed a large number of $35,000 checks over several months to cover all of the hush payment, Cohen’s fee, and  Cohen’s resulting tax liability.

Still, except for Cohen’s testimony, there was no direct evidence that Trump was actually aware of how the business records of this transaction were falsified. Nevertheless, his payment in full of the “legal fees”—and the gross-up—could be sufficient evidence for the jury that Trump agreed to the transaction and records falsification involved.

What the jury actually thinks or believes is of course the key to the outcome of the trial. There are several items that make this very difficult to assess:

• Trump is a major political figure, a Republican who could possibly be President.  Since the trial was in New York, most of the jury were likely to be Democrats, but some jurors might be Trump-style Republicans, inclined to acquit.
• It would not be surprising if the jurors were to decide that their decision could change the course of history, and for that reason give Trump the benefit of the doubt on all questionable issues.
• There are two non-trial lawyers on the jury and likely to be influential because of their backgrounds, which are unknown.
• Finally, there was no discussion at the trial whether Trump acted with the criminal intent usually necessary for a crime.
• Since the trial was not televised, viewer reactions, including mine, might be affected by biased reports. Mostly, when I took the time to learn about the trial, I watched CNN which was biased against Trump. Fox News had an entirely different perspective.

Considering all these factors, I have a weak belief—really a guess—that Trump will be convicted.

The post Will Trump Be Convicted or Acquitted? appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.