Donald Trump’s hush money case is set for a crucial hearing Monday as a New York judge weighs when, or even whether, the former president will go on trial after a postponement due to a last-minute document dump.
Quick Read
- Upcoming Hearing: Donald Trump is set for a crucial court hearing on Monday to determine the future course of his hush money case in New York, following a trial postponement due to a late document release.
- Document Delay Impact: The defense argues that the recent delivery of a large volume of documents from a previous federal investigation justifies either dismissing the case or delaying it further, suggesting a minimum three-month pushback.
- Prosecution’s Stance: The prosecution contends that the newly received documents contain little new information and do not warrant any additional delay in the trial proceedings.
- Charges Against Trump: Trump faces charges of falsifying business records related to $130,000 in payments, allegedly to conceal attempts to influence the 2016 campaign by suppressing stories of extramarital affairs.
- Political Context: Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, labels the prosecution as politically motivated, highlighting that the case is overseen by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat.
- Case Details: The allegations focus on payments made to Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for reimbursing money given to Stormy Daniels, a porn actor who claimed to have had a sexual encounter with Trump. The defense maintains these were legitimate legal expenses.
- Cohen’s Role: Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to related federal charges and implicated Trump in the arrangement, is a significant witness for the prosecution in this case.
- Discovery Dispute: Trump’s legal team claims that the prosecution only provided a minimal amount of materials from the federal investigation initially and that a substantial amount was only obtained after they subpoenaed federal prosecutors directly.
- Exculpatory Evidence: According to Trump’s lawyers, some of the newly obtained documents are favorable to the defense and could have influenced earlier stages of the case had they been available.
- Prosecutors’ Defense: The prosecution argues that they made good-faith efforts to obtain relevant information from the federal investigation and that the defense had ample opportunity to raise concerns about the discovery process.
- Relevance of New Material: Despite acknowledging some new relevant materials, prosecutors argue that most of the documents are either irrelevant or redundant and that the defense has sufficient time to review the pertinent information before a proposed mid-April trial date.
- Supreme Court Considerations: Trump’s defense also seeks to delay the trial pending a Supreme Court ruling on claims of presidential immunity related to his election interference case, with arguments scheduled for April 25.
The Associated Press has the story:
Donald Trump is due in court for a hearing in his hush money case
Newslooks- NEW YORK (AP) —
Donald Trump’s hush money case is set for a crucial hearing Monday as a New York judge weighs when, or even whether, the former president will go on trial after a postponement due to a last-minute document dump.
The presumptive Republican nominee is expected in court for a hearing that is happening instead of the long-planned start of jury selection in the first of his four criminal cases to go to trial. The trial has been put off until at least mid-April because of the recent delivery of tens of thousands of pages of records from a previous federal investigation.
Trump’s lawyers argue that the delayed disclosures warrant dismissing the case or at least pushing it off three months. Prosecutors say there’s little new material in the trove and no reason for further delay.
New York Judge Juan M. Merchan has summoned both sides to court Monday to explain what happened, so he can evaluate whether to fault or penalize anyone and decide on the next steps.
Trump is charged with falsifying business records. Manhattan prosecutors say he did it as part of an effort to protect his 2016 campaign by burying what Trump says were false stories of extramarital sex.
Trump has pleaded not guilty and says the prosecution is politically driven bunk. The prosecutor overseeing the case, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, is a Democrat.
The case centers on allegations that Trump falsely logged $130,000 in payments as legal fees in his company’s books “to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct,” as Bragg’s deputies put it in a court document.
The money went to Trump’s then-personal attorney Michael Cohen, but prosecutors say it wasn’t for actual legal work. Rather, they say, Cohen was just recouping money he’d paid porn actor Stormy Daniels on Trump’s behalf, so she wouldn’t publicize her claim of a sexual encounter with him years earlier.
Trump’s lawyers say the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses, not cover-up checks.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges, including campaign finance violations related to the Daniels payoff. He said Trump directed him to arrange it, and federal prosecutors indicated they believed him, but they never charged Trump with any crime related to the matter.
Cohen is now a key witness in Manhattan prosecutors’ case against Trump.
Trump’s lawyers have said Bragg’s office, in June, gave them a smidgen of materials from the federal investigation into Cohen. Then they got over 100,000 pages more after subpoenaing federal prosecutors themselves in January. The defense argues that prosecutors should have pursued all the records but instead stuck their heads in the sand, hoping to keep information from Trump.
The material hasn’t been made public. But Trump’s lawyers said in a court filing that some of it is “exculpatory and favorable to the defense,” adding that there’s information that would have aided their own investigation and consequential legal filings earlier in the case.
Bragg’s deputies have insisted they “engaged in good-faith and diligent efforts to obtain relevant information” from the federal probe. They argued in court filings that Trump’s lawyers should have spoken up earlier if they believed those efforts were lacking.
Prosecutors maintain that, in any event, the vast majority of what ultimately came is irrelevant, duplicative or backs up existing evidence about Cohen’s well-known federal conviction. They acknowledged in a court filing that there was some relevant new material, including 172 pages of notes recording Cohen’s meetings with the office of former special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Russia’s 2016 election interference.
Prosecutors argued that their adversaries have enough time to work with the relevant material before a mid-April trial date and are just raising a “red herring.”
Trump’s lawyers also have sought to delay the trial until after the Supreme Court rules on his claims of presidential immunity in his election interference case in Washington. The high court is set to hear arguments April 25.
