Here’s Who Trump Should Blame: His Lawyers

By the time the jury reached its verdict finding former President Donald J. Trump guilty on all 34 counts of the charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, there was little doubt there would be no acquittal forthcoming for the former president. Deliberating for less than two days, the jury’s speed in reaching a decision was noteworthy and likely due to the strength of the case.

While it is not true that fast verdicts are always pro-defense or pro-prosecution, they do indicate that the evidence has been powerful for one side or the other, because it is not easy for twelve people to agree on the guilt of a defendant.

There was little doubt that there would be an acquittal because acquittals happen when either the prosecution makes a misstep, such as having a problem with a witness, or chooses to bring a case where the direct evidence is weak and where the defense is able to present a coherent powerful counter-narrative. As the trial progressed it was obvious that neither of those scenarios were likely.

GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS! Trump a Convicted CriminalVERDICT IS IN

Jose Pagliery, Rachel Olding, Brett Bachman

Starting with the opening statement of Trump lead defense counsel, Todd Blanche, who managed to draw objections that were sustained by Judge Juan Merchan, the defense stumbled out of the gate and kept stumbling. It’s rare for there to be objections during an opening statement due in equal parts to professional courtesy and because it is actually hard to say something outside the bounds given that the opening is merely a promise of what the jury will see.

Blanche managed to blunder into this unusual problem only because he apparently tried to raise points such as an advice-of-counsel defense which the judge had already rejected. The cross-examination by both defense counsel. Blanche and Susan Necheles, then only worsened matters as each in their own way managed to bolster the prosecution rather than weaken it.

Necheles cross-examined actor/director Stormy Daniels in a bullying, shaming style that utterly undermined any advantage to having a female cross-examine another female to avoid the optics of a man being harsh towards a female witness. Such a strategy is often used in sex crimes cases, which this was not. But Necheles managed to give it the feel of one with Daniels being the brave victim in the face of a sexist, misogynistic attack that essentially tried to imply that Daniels’ work in the adult film industry made her morally unfit to be believed.

The offensive nature of Necheles’ tactics was itself enough to turn the jury against Trump’s team, but Daniels made it even easier by shining during cross-examination, and repeatedly slam-dunking Necheles’ questions in the experienced lawyer’s face.

Daniels was arguably a witness that had little material to say about the main elements of the charges—falsification of business records in order to interfere with an election—given that she had no knowledge of those facts. But, perhaps, at the insistence of Trump, Necheles turned what could have been a very minor part of the case into a bright display of Trump’s misogyny and arrogance.

Blanche continued this pattern of failed cross-examination in his efforts at attacking the testimony of Michael Cohen—Trump’s former fixer-attorney—who was a central witness in the prosecution’s case. Cohen, who carried the baggage of having been convicted for lying to Congress about many of the very facts of this case as well as being convicted for tax fraud and campaign finance violations, was a good target for cross-examination.

But instead of using these questions about his credibility to surgically raise doubt about particular aspects of his testimony, Blanche chose to apparently channel his inner Trump by literally yelling at Cohen that he was a “liar.” Such displays by a lawyer during cross-examination are seldom effective and proved particularly humiliating for Blanche given that he made Cohen—known to be volatile—look calm and reasonable in comparison to Blanche himself.

Blanche’s closing continued his ranting about Cohen’s honesty, coming up with terms like Cohen being the “G.L.O.A.T”—greatest liar of all time. In short, Blanche relied on the idea that a person who has been dishonest in the past is always dishonest, instead of showing how and where he was being dishonest in this case.

In contrast, the prosecution presented an overwhelming case in methodical fashion. Their presentation of Cohen—with his potential vulnerabilities—was prefaced by a slew of corroborating testimony from witnesses and paper trails that followed the money. In so doing, they armored Cohen from Blanche’s attacks because the jury did not have to take Cohen’s word alone. They had receipts. Lots of them.

Lead prosecutor Joshua Steinglass presented a masterly summation that lasted some four hours. Tirelessly and clearly weaving together the weeks of testimony for the jury, Steinglass even rhetorically asked the jury if they could hang in there with him as his closing argument went into the evening. That last touch helped him establish a rapport that Blanche failed so badly to do with the jury.

Many critics of this case have disparaged it as being the “weakest” case against Trump; in my view much of that criticism is rooted in misogyny and privileged views of what kind of case is “worthy” of bringing against a rich, powerful man. The way justice should work is that prosecutions take place or don’t take place because of the facts surrounding the criminal acts, not the power or gender of the defendant.

There will of course be appeals of Trump’s historic conviction and we do not yet know the outcomes of those. But what we do know is that the prosecution, trial, and conviction of Donald J. Trump was one example of justice being brought against the powerful. It is a scenario that is too infrequent in the world and in our country. But the fact that it did happen is a testament to the strength of American democracy and the integrity and skill of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.