Donald Trump Trial ‘Much More Serious’ Than Expected: Legal Analyst

Donald Trump’s hush money case is “much more serious” than initially made out by pundits and commentators, a legal analyst writes in a new op-ed.

Jury selection is complete as of Friday afternoon, with seven men and five women now seated to prepare to hear opening statements on Monday in the much-anticipated and first-ever trial featuring a former president as a criminal defendant.

Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records regarding a payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential election campaign. Trump has continued to deny any wrongdoing in the case and has said it should be dismissed.

On Friday, before entering the courtroom in Manhattan, Trump again railed on New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan regarding his “very unfair” gag order that disallows Trump to publicly discuss the judge, courtroom employees and other individuals in any way associated with the case—including his former “fixer” Michael Cohen, a key witness for the prosecution.

“The legitimacy of American governance rests upon the honesty of our elections. When information is withheld from voters, as Bragg alleges happened here, that undermines democracy,” Norm Eisen, a CNN legal analyst who formerly served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for Trump’s first impeachment trial, writes in a new op-ed. “Calling this trial a mere ‘hush money’ case risks minimizing what’s at stake. It is an election interference one and we should say so.”

He said that this case—one of four total criminal cases against the ex-president—is more serious than the perception of falsified records and a payment to an adult film star.

He quoted Merchan’s first words in the trial on Monday, in which he said: “The allegations are in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.”

The case goes beyond its perceived simplicity, Eisen claims, because the payment to Daniels was itself allegedly illegal under federal and state law “and was plainly intended to influence the 2016 election.”

It’s why Cohen ultimately pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations (in addition to other offenses), for which he spent time in prison.

“The essence of the charges here, therefore, are as significant in their own way as the ones concerning election interference in the 2020 campaign that have gotten more attention, a federal case brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith and a Georgia case brought by Fulton County DA Fani Willis,” Eisen wrote.

“Trump’s alleged 2020 attempt to overthrow our government distorts perceptions of how serious the charges related to the 2016 election are. We can’t allow the extreme nature of Trump’s later behavior to change the benchmark for what is a serious alleged offense. The Manhattan case meets that standard—and then some.”