There’s nothing simple or obvious about Trump’s trial defense

During closing arguments in Donald Trump’s felony trial Tuesday morning, his lawyer Todd Blanche said, “There’s a reason why, in life, usually the simplest answer is the right one.”

I found this an odd approach, because to believe his theory of the case requires accepting several improbable things. First, although it’s not legally germane, Blanche reiterated, perhaps at the insistence of his client, that Trump “has unequivocally and repeatedly denied” any encounter with Stormy Daniels. And rather than simply arguing that Trump didn’t know about the scheme to reimburse Michael Cohen for the payoff to Daniels, he appears to be arguing that no such scheme existed.

Cohen, said Blanche, had a verbal retainer agreement in 2017 to serve as Trump’s personal attorney, and that’s why he was paid $420,000. If that’s the case, it’s hard to imagine why Cohen pleaded guilty and served prison time in connection with the hush-money payment.

Blanche’s argument has been internally inconsistent. First, he insisted that Trump, being busy as president, didn’t always look at the checks he signed. Then, trying to discredit the idea that Trump would reimburse Cohen $420,000 for a $130,000 payment — which Cohen has claimed was grossed up to include taxes and a bonus — Blanche pointed to “all the evidence you heard about how closely President Trump watches his finances.”

During a long digression about the National Enquirer’s practice of “catching and killing” stories, he insisted that there had never been a “catch and kill” plot involving Playboy model Karen McDougal, implying, I think, that her deal with the publication was on the level. “She wanted to be on the cover of magazines; she wanted to write articles,” said Blanche, and that’s what she did.

Obviously, I have no idea what the jury is thinking. But given the implausibility of the narrative that Trump’s defense is spinning, it just seems weird that Blanche is invoking Occam’s razor.

In his closing argument Tuesday, Donald Trump’s lead defense attorney, Todd Blanche, repeatedly tried to sell a revisionist history of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump was recorded boasting of his penchant for sexual assault. In the felony case against Trump, the “Access Hollywood” tape is important because, in the story the prosecution is telling, it’s the reason Trump was desperate to quash Stormy Daniels’ story.

“The government wants you to believe that the release of that tape from 2005 was so catastrophic to that campaign that it provided a motive for President Trump to do something criminal,” he said.

Attempting to undercut that narrative, Blanche insisted that it really wasn’t that big of a deal. It caused, he said, a “couple days of frustration and consternation, but that happens all the time during campaigns.” He added: “The Access Hollywood tape is being set up in this trial to be something that it is not.”

This is insultingly and obviously untrue. As longtime Trump aide Hope Hicks testified about that moment in the 2016 campaign, “I think there was consensus among us all that the tape was damaging, and this was a crisis.”

We now know that a critical mass of voters doesn’t care about Trump’s misogyny and predation, but we didn’t know that then. One job of the prosecution will be to take the jury back to when people still imagined there were Republicans with a capacity for shame.

© 2024 The New York Times Company