Former President Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial, which began jury selection on Monday, April 15, has topped the week’s news cycle. Two key questions emerge: What is this case really about, and why is the media calling it a “hush money” trial when Trump isn’t being charged for paying off a porn star?
The popularized name does not describe the actual case or charges against him. Even if Trump did pay hush money, which he says he didn’t, doing so isn’t a crime.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
The case would not exist without a $130,000 payment Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels that Trump reimbursed. However, the charges in the case revolve around how Trump classified the repayment. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argued Trump purposely hid the payment as a “legal expense” to save his reputation in the eyes of voters.
If the jury finds Trump paid off Stormy Daniels or falsified business records, neither action constitutes a crime on its own. The prosecution has to prove he did so with the intent to commit another crime.
The jury will have to find Trump falsified records, and it will also need to find he did so with the intent of concealing a campaign finance or tax crime. Bragg classified that charge as interfering in the 2016 election.
The complexity of this case has some legal scholars questioning how the media framed this trial, which has been expressed in recent articles.
“When information is withheld from voters, as Bragg alleges happened here, that undermines democracy,” CNN Legal Analyst Norman Eisen wrote in an op-ed titled, “Don’t call it a ‘hush money’ case.”
“Calling this trial a mere ‘hush money’ case risks minimizing what’s at stake,” Eisen said. “It’s an election interference one and we should say so.”
Other scholars disagreed with the case’s classification as election interference.
“I certainly understand the impulse of Trump opponents to label this case as one of election interference,” Richard L. Hasen, a legal scholar, wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. “Willfully not reporting expenses to cover up an affair isn’t interfering with an election along the lines of trying to get a secretary of state to falsify vote totals. Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term.”
“It’s been called the hush money case, but Donald Trump isn’t charged with paying hush money,” Jorden Rubin, a former Manhattan prosecutor and legal blog writer for MSNBC, said. “It’s been called an election interference case, but that might not fully explain it, either. Technically, it’s a falsifying business records case. Of course, that doesn’t have the same ring to it as hush money or election interference.”
The New York Times published an article on the topic as well.
“A case about true and accurate business records is not the sexiest way to describe the case, which is why its become known as the hush money trial,” Jess Bidgood, the reporter, said.
It’s common for news outlets to shorthand a trial name since journalists refer to it so many times in coverage. If the media were to call it “the Trump case,” it might be hard to differentiate between Trump’s other cases.
[KARAH RUCKER]
AT THE TOP OF THE NEWS CYCLE THIS WEEK..
TRUMP’S “HUSH MONEY TRIAL.”
YOU’VE LIKELY HEARD IT OVER AND OVER.
BUT WHAT IS THIS CASE REALLY ABOUT??
AND WHY IS IT BEING CALLED A “HUSH MONEY” TRIAL WHEN TRUMP ISN’T BEING CHARGED FOR PAYING OFF A PORN STAR.
BECAUSE EVEN IF HE DID THAT – WHICH HE SAYS HE DIDN’T –
PAYING “HUSH MONEY” ISN’T A CRIME.
NOBODY IN THE **LEGAL CIRCLE IS FOCUSED ON THIS ASPECT.
BUT IT’S THE DESCRIPTION THE MEDIA HAS LARGELY USED –
AND NOW THE NATION HAS LATCHED ONTO.
[NEWS ANCHOR]
“Jury selection begins in hush money trial in new york city its the first criminal trial of a president in american history”
[NEWS ANCHOR]
“The second day of donald trump’s hush money trial just wrapping up just a little while ago”
[NEWS ANCHOR]
“We begin with that hush money trial of donald trump.”
[NEWS ANCHOR]
“Former president trump ready to take the stand in his hush money trial”
[KARAH RUCKER]
WHILE THE CASE WOULDN’T EXIST WITHOUT THIS 130 THOUSAND DOLLAR PAYMENT TRUMP’S LAWYER MICHAEL COHEN MADE TO STORMY DANIELS THEN TRUMP REIMBURSED –
THE **CHARGES IN THE CASE REVOLVE AROUND HOW TRUMP CLASSIFIED the repayment AND IF HE **PURPOSELY HID THE MOVE AS A “LEGAL EXPENSE” TO SAVE HIS REPUTATION IN THE EYES OF VOTERS.
SO IF THE JURY FINDS TRUMP DID PAY OFF STORMY DANIELS.
THAT’S NOT THE CRIME.
AND IF THE JURY BELIEVES TRUMP DID FALSIFY BUSINESS RECORDS.
THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT A FELONY IN AND OF ITSELF.
The prosecution has to prove he did so with the intent to commit another crime.
THE JURY WILL HAVE TO FIND TRUMP FALSIFIED RECORDS AND DID SO **WITH THE INTENT** OF concealing a campaign finance or tax crime. Which D-A ALVIN BRAGG has classified as INTERFERING IN THE 2016 ELECTION.
THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS CASE –
HAS SOME LEGAL SCHOLARS QUESTIONING HOW THE TRIAL IS BEING FRAMED – AND EXPRESSED THIS IN RECENT ARTICLES.
IN AN OP-ED TITLED “DON’T CALL IT A HUSH MONEY CASE” –
A CNN LEGAL ANALYST SAID
“WHEN INFORMATION IS WITHHELD FROM VOTERS, AS BRAGG ALLEGES HAPPENED HERE, THAT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY. CALLING THIS TRIAL A MERE “HUSH MONEY” CASE RISKS MINIMIZING WHAT’S AT STAKE. IT’S AN ELECTION INTERFERENCE ONE AND WE SHOULD SAY SO.”
BUT A LEGAL SCHOLAR WROTE IN A LOS ANGELES TIMES OP-ED –
“I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPULSE OF TRUMP OPPONENTS TO LABEL THIS CASE AS ONE OF ELECTION INTERFERENCE. WILLFULLY NOT REPORTING EXPENSES TO COVER UP AN AFFAIR ISN’T INTERFERING WITH AN ELECTION ALONG THE LINES OF TRYING TO GET A SECRETARY OF STATE TO FALSIFY VOTE TOTALS. CALLING IT ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTUALLY CHEAPENS THE TERM.”
A FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR AND LEGAL BLOG WRITER FOR MSNBC SAYS – .
“It’s been called the hush money case, but Donald Trump isn’t charged with paying hush money. It’s been called an election interference case, but that might not fully explain it, either. Technically, it’s a falsifying business records case. Of course, that doesn’t have the same ring to it as hush money or election interference.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE SAYING “A CASE ABOUT TRUE AND ACCURATE BUSINESS RECORDS IS NOT THE SEXIEST WAY TO DESCRIBE THE CASE
WHICH IS WHY ITS BECOME KNOWN AS THE HUSH MONEY TRIAL.”
THIS COULD BE SEEN AS SENSATIONALISM – WHICH IS A FORM OF BIAS MEDIA WATCHDOG GROUPS LIKE ALLSIDES LOOKS OUT FOR.
BUT THIS CASE – IS A TOUGH ONE.
YOU’VE GOT NEWS OUTLETS ON THE LEFT **AND THE RIGHT CALLING IT THE HUSH MONEY TRIAL.
IT’S COMMON FOR NEWS OUTLETS TO SHORTHAND A TRIAL NAME SINCE WE REFER TO IT SO MANY TIMES IN CONTINUING COVERAGE.
AND IF THE MEDIA WERE TO CALL IT “THE TRUMP CASE” –
IT MIGHT WOULD BE HARD TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TRUMP’S OTHER CASES.
FOR THE **PURPOSE OF THIS STORY –
WE HOPE YOU HAVE SOME **CONTEXT BEHIND THE COINED NAME TO HELP YOU FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS ABOUT A TRIAL YOU’LL LIKELY HEAR ABOUT FOR MANY WEEKS TO COME – AS OPENING STATEMENTS ARE AROUND THE CORNER.
VOTE WITH THE UNBIASED, STRAIGHT FACTS.™
We promise you context and clarity when it matters the most!