David Corn: Everything You Wanted to Know About Trump's Porn-Star-Hush-Money Case

https://link.motherjones.com/public/34970243


Donald Trump’s porn-star-hush-money case has always been the poor cousin among the four criminal prosecutions targeting him. It involves alleged crimes committed before he was president, and it focuses on sleazy actions unrelated to affairs of state. The other indictments Trump faces are serious governmental matters: swiping top-secret documents and attempting to overturn an election so he could stay in power. This case is literally ripped from the tawdry tabloid world: a presidential candidate paying off an adult film star so she wouldn’t go public with her claim that they had an affair. Trying to silence a porn actor is not a crime in itself. The legal issue here is more mundane: falsifying business records to hide a possible violation of election law.

Yet the case—scheduled to go to trial this coming Monday—is historic and important. This is the first time a former president and current major presidential candidate will be in the dock for a criminal trial. And the alleged crime was an attempt to influence the 2016 election. Yes, you can call it election interference. Trump’s supposed goal—keeping voters from learning of his alleged extramarital tryst with Daniels—is a reminder of the tawdry swamp from which Trump emerged. That’s not a good look now when Trump’s campaign is striving to make inroads among suburban women voters.

This trial means a lot. With that in mind, the time is right for a refresher covering all the seedy details of this caper and the likely cast of characters and the testimony to come. I pulled together such a piece before New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted Trump last year. Here is a revised version of that article and—if I do say so myself—it offers one-stop prep for this momentous occasion: The first Trump criminal case to go to trial.
* * *
During Donald Trump’s hush-money-porn-star trial, the sordid tale of the secret payoff to Stormy Daniels to benefit a presidential candidate will be relentlessly scrutinized. Bragg and Trump’s defense team will each strive to shape the narrative to answer several critical questions in its favor: For what reason did Michael Cohen, Trump’s fixer, pay Daniels $130,000 days before the 2016 election to stop her from airing the allegation that she and Trump had an extramarital (for him) tryst? Was it to protect Trump's presidential bid in the aftermath of the Access Hollywood “grab-’em-by-the-pussy” video? Or was it merely to spare Trump and his family personal embarrassment? (It certainly could be both.) Did Trump personally direct this payment? Or did Cohen orchestrate it on his own?

*snip*