Thread by @RDEliason

Trump's NY defense and why it could work: a longish 🧵.

Many scoff at the defense suggestion that Trump didn’t know about the scheme at the time it happened. But that’s their best possible defense - and it’s far from crazy. Here’s why. 1/

Remember, it’s not enough for the DA just to show that the documents were false or that Trump signed the checks to Cohen. They have to show that at the time the payments were made, Trump personally knew the records were false, and 2/

That he caused them to be entered in the records of his company with intent to defraud, including the intent to cover up another crime, at the time the false records were made.

So here's the defense argument: 3/

"Look, Trump was a busy guy. CEO of a sprawling company with hundreds of different components and thousands of different transactions each day, a presidential candidate, and then a sitting U.S. president. He had a lot on his plate." 4/

"He didn’t have time to get his hands dirty with all the details of transactions like this. He has people who handle that for him. So when the Daniels thing came up, Cohen and Weisselberg cooked up a scheme to pay her off and have Cohen reimbursed. Trump was not involved." 5/

Remember that so far, no witness has testified that Trump was directly involved in negotiating the payoff. Daniels’s lawyer never spoke to Trump, and his signature doesn’t appear on any of the paperwork. No one - so far - has put him in the middle of the alleged crime. 6/

The same is true of the evidence today about Weisselberg's notes recording how the repayment scheme would work, including "grossing up" the payment for Cohen's taxes. This all could have been done between Weisselberg and Cohen. Trump's fingerprints aren't on it. 7/

But, you protest, no way Cohen would use his own money, out of the goodness of his heart! OK - maybe he did it with Weisselberg, or with W. and Don Jr., including their promise they would arrange for Cohen to be reimbursed. That doesn’t mean Trump was directly involved. 8/

But didn’t Hope Hicks testify about a conversation with Trump where he admitted knowing about the payoff by Cohen? Yes, but that was in 2018, after the Daniels story became public. That doesn’t mean Trump knew about the scheme when it was hatched or 9/

At the time the false documents were made. He could have learned about it only after the story broke. The DA has to prove he had knowledge and the intent to defraud at the time the records were made - his intent to defraud can't be retroactive. 10/

But Trump signed the checks! Yes, but he’s a busy guy. If Weisselberg or his sons or other trusted advisors tell him these are for Cohen’s legal services, he’ll sign what they put in front of him. That doesn’t prove he knew the details of the scheme or the false records. 11/

This is why the DA has brought out evidence from Hicks and others about Trump being a micromanager, involved in every little detail of his business and campaign. They want to undercut the suggestion that he may not have known the details of the scheme. 12/

All of the testimony -- so far -- has left the door open for this defense argument. No one has put Trump at the center of the coverup scheme and suggested he knew about it, including that the documents were false and that they were concealing a crime. 13/

That evidence of Trump’s personal involvement will likely come primarily from Cohen. And the defense has more legitimate ammunition with which to attack his credibility than they do for any other witness - by far. 14/

So depending on what other evidence the DA has, the defense may be in a position to argue that on the crucial question of Trump’s intent, it all comes down to Cohen, and he can’t be believed for many reasons. 15/

I can hear the closing now: "Ladies and gentlemen, finding a man guilty is an extremely serious decision. If you had to make a critical decision affecting your own life, would you rely on the word of someone like Michael Cohen? Of course you wouldn't." 16/

As others have noted today, in a documents case the documents don’t lie. It’s going to be pretty tough for the defense to argue the records weren’t false (although apparently they are going to try). But claiming Trump didn’t know at the time - that argument has a shot. 17/

Now in the end I don’t think this defense will be particularly persuasive. I think the jury will probably largely believe Cohen, and I still think it’s likely Trump ends up being convicted. But it’s not a frivolous defense. It's definitely what I'd be arguing. 18/

It’s the defense’s best shot at raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror.

The state’s critical task in the remaining trial is to remove that doubt and place Trump himself at the center of the coverup scheme’s execution and planning. 19/end