TClosing arguments for Donald Trump’s secret trial have ended and a jury is now deciding Trump’s fate in a Manhattan courtroom. But in many ways, it is truth itself that is on trial.
In recent weeks, jurors have heard arguments about Trump’s alleged attempt to misinform Americans and influence the 2016 presidential election by falsifying business records and hiding secret payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Depending on his opinion of Trump, the trial is either a long-awaited moment of accountability or a politically motivated case of prosecutorial overreach. But the case represents something more than the former president’s guilt or innocence – it’s a referendum on whether facts and the law still matter. Depending on one’s view of the case, the verdict will likely be seen as a compromise with the rule of law or a miscarriage of justice.
First comes the verification of the facts. In our post-truth era, fact-finding by a jury may seem like a quaint notion. Yet every day, in courtrooms across America, randomly selected citizens come together to discern fact from evidence and render verdicts. Their verdicts to hold people accountable for committing crimes is what maintains the rule of law.
See more information: 5 things we learned from the Trump trial
In Trump’s case, the jury will soon deliberate whether Trump falsified business records relating to the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and did so with the intent to conceal violations of tax and campaign laws. According to testimony from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the release in October 2016 of a recording of Trump making derogatory comments about groping women at an open mic to the Access Hollywood television program made it imperative to avoid another disclosure of sexual impropriety before the election. Unless Trump prevented Americans from learning about his alleged act of adultery, Cohen testified, Trump believed his campaign would suffer a “total disaster.” Furthermore, David Peckerformer editor of National Researcher, testified at trial that in August 2016, shortly after Trump became the Republican nominee for president, he paid $150,000 to silence the former Playboy model Karen McDougal regarding an extramarital relationship with Trump.
Some critics of the case argue that there is nothing illegal about paying hush money and that the charges would not have been brought if the defendant’s name had been anything other than Donald Trump. Testimony during the trial revealed that other famous men entered into agreements with AMI, the parent company of National Researcher, to kill stories alleging extramarital affairs.
But this criticism misses the point. It is not just the payment of hush money that is the crime. It’s a cover-up for someone who is running for president. Running for public office comes with the responsibility of submitting accurate campaign finance reports. The indictment charges that when Trump allegedly caused 34 checks, invoices and accounting entries to be falsely characterized as legal expenses, he intended to conceal violations of state and federal campaign finance laws, as well as tax laws. New York law makes it a crime to conspire to promote or impede the election of a candidate by illegal means. Federal law prohibits corporate contributions, like the one made by AMI, and limits the amount of individual contributions to $2,700, far below the $130,000 allegedly made by Cohen. When Trump reimbursed Cohen, he allegedly falsely characterized the payments as income, resulting in the tax bill.
In addition to violating the law, the alleged scheme, if true, also betrays the trust of the American people. Voters have the right to know the facts about a candidate when they vote. If candidates can covertly manipulate public perception to serve their own interests, they undermine the public’s ability to make fact-based decisions.
Jurors will decide whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and will return a verdict. The prosecution’s case is far from perfect. Daniels and Cohen admitted to making previous inconsistent statements. Cohen, who was arrested for perjury, even admitted to stealing money from the former president. Even if he is convicted, as a first-time offender, Trump is unlikely to face a prison sentence of any significance or be removed from the ballot as the presumptive Republican Party nominee for president. But the verdict is likely to raise strong opinions, even from people who have not heard all the evidence or analyzed all the evidence, as the jury did.
See more information: What will happen if Trump is convicted? Your questions, answered
This is where the rule of law will be tested. As a former prosecutor, I was trained to defend cases in court with zeal, but to accept the jury’s verdict with respect, even when it was not the decision I was looking for. I have learned to recognize that reasonable minds can disagree and that it is more important to maintain public confidence in our legal system than to obtain a conviction in a specific case. Supporting our legal system means we focus on fair process and tolerate decisions we disagree with. Otherwise, our criminal justice system would fall apart.
But throughout this trial, Trump and his supporters have prepared the public to distrust the fairness of the trial. Trump called the case a “sham” and “a Biden show trial,” even though the case was brought by a state court prosecutor outside the president’s federal chain of command. Trump called Judge Juan Merchan is “corrupt” and “highly conflictual”.”Trump even falsely claimed that the gag order inserted to prevent either party from making comments outside the courtroom about witnesses, court staff and jurors prevents him from testifying, a “misunderstanding” that Judge Merchan officially corrected, but a narrative that Trump can use to explain a decision of not testifying.
On May 14, a group of Republican members of Congress attended the trial, wearing identical navy blue suits, white shirts and red ties. Outside the court, they addressed the media and the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, downplayed all the criminal cases pending against Trump. “These are politically motivated trials and they are a disgrace,” he said. “It’s election interference.” His unity and uniforms signaled a loyalty to one man over the rule of law.
His stunt was the latest chapter in Trump’s playbook for belittling institutions that might stand in his way. By undermining public trust in potential critics, Trump can minimize their inevitable criticisms as illegitimate. Mitigating potential critics is why he refers to the media as “the enemy of the people” and career public servants as “the deep state.” And now, according to Trump, any lawsuit filed to hold him accountable for alleged criminal conduct is simply “election interference.” These allegations not only provide pretextual defenses for Trump, they also tend to reduce public trust in the institutions of democracy.
The jury’s decision in this case will bring this trial to an end. But public opinion will give the verdict on the truth and the future of our faith in the judicial system.
This story originally appeared on Time.com read the full story
