Editor's note: Norman Eisen is a CNN legal analyst and editor of “Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial.” He served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment and trial of then-President Donald Trump. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Read more opinions on CNN
CNN —
When a litigating lawyer bumps into a colleague outside the courtroom, a common question is, “How's the case going?” This question reflects that it is one thing to plan a trial, but it is another thing to plan a trial, but it is another to how well the evidence, especially testimony by witnesses, is actually “presented” before the judge and jury. I am.
Provided by Norm Eisen
Norm Eisen
Donald Trump's Manhattan election interference trial has a better-than-expected outcome, and that's ominous for the former president.
A key moment in Keith Davidson's test on Thursday showed that. Davidson is the lawyer who represented Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels when their hush money payments were negotiated with President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, but the payments were tied to the election. It is said to have been part of an impact plan.
Although Davidson is only a supporting character in the drama, his role in negotiating the payment to Daniels makes him a key witness who reveals the basic facts of the “catch and kill” plot and corroborates details testified by former American media outlets. It became. , Inc. and publisher of the National Enquirer, and Cohen would eventually testify about.
Perhaps the most dramatic moment in Davidson's morning testimony was about his 2016 election night text message exchange with Dylan Howard, a former National Enquirer editor who helped broker the story. It was when I was asked a question. Prosecutors asked Davidson to explain the meaning of the texts he sent Howard that night. As President Trump's election neared, Mr. Davidson sent a text message to Mr. Howard asking, “What did we do?”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Davidson what he meant by that word. “It means that our efforts may have supported Donald Trump's presidential campaign in some way,” he responded.
When Davidson said those words, the usual silence in the courtroom was suddenly interrupted by the clatter of the keyboards of more than 60 journalists sitting on bleacher-like benches. why? Ultimately, prosecutors don't have to prove that the alleged secret payments to Daniels actually swayed the election, and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said in his office's opening statement that “we will never know.” I said the same thing.
However, this exchange nevertheless reflects the purpose of the payment. Forging a document is just a misdemeanor unless there is an intent to cover up another crime. Trump was indicted on a felony charge of document falsification, which was allegedly made with the intent to conceal payments that exceeded campaign spending limits to influence the election.
Get our free weekly newsletter
What was striking about Davidson's testimony was that it may have accomplished that goal. Therefore, even though it is not necessary to prove that the plan to change the winner worked, reminding jurors, and all of us in the courtroom, of that possibility is helpful in dramatizing key elements of the alleged crime. emphasized.
He also emphasized the stakes here. Unlike Trump's 2020 election interference lawsuits pending in Georgia and federal courts, the illegal efforts alleged in this lawsuit to influence the election may actually have been successful. There is. I watched the jury closely as Mr. Davidson spoke, and they were transfixed. Prosecutors are always looking for ways to convey to jurors that they are spending weeks of their lives considering issues that are not trivial, but critical to the integrity of our elections and our democracy. We'll see if they agree when the final verdict is handed down.
