Trump’s Closing Argument Clarity to Chaos in Merchan’s Courtroom

The trial of former President Donald Trump is marred by ambiguities and a lack of clear evidence.

The prosecution's case hinges on convoluted legal arguments and the testimony of a discredited witness, Michael Cohen.

The defence argues that the charges, which involve the resurrection of expired misdemeanours into felonies, lack a solid foundation and fail to demonstrate Trump's direct involvement or criminal intent.

The jury faces a challenging task, with Judge Merchan's controversial ruling allowing for a split verdict on which crime was allegedly concealed.

The defence will likely focus on highlighting the absence of concrete evidence and the reasonable doubt surrounding the case, questioning the fairness of convicting Trump under these circumstances.

This trial underscores broader concerns about justice and the potential consequences of convicting individuals without clear and substantial evidence.

Curious Defense Position: Trump's lawyers are defending him against unclear charges, allegedly resurrected from expired misdemeanours into felonies related to hiding payments to Stormy Daniels.

Ambiguous Charges: District Attorney Alvin Bragg references potential tax violations and state or federal campaign finance violations. However, the specifics remain vague and even legal experts are puzzled.

Judge's Unusual Ruling: Judge Juan Merchan ruled that the jury doesn’t need to agree on which crime was concealed, allowing a split verdict to be treated as unanimous.

Falsification of Records: The prosecution claims business records were falsified to hide payments. However, evidence suggests Trump may not have known how these payments were labelled, with others handling these transactions.

Secondary Crime Confusion: The defence argues that non-disclosure agreements are common and not necessarily illegal, undermining the claim that payments were meant to influence the election.

Criminal Intent: The government must prove Trump intended to influence the election unlawfully. The defence highlights that the key witness, Michael Cohen, lacks credibility and that no clear criminal intent was established.

Lack of Evidence: The defence emphasizes the absence of substantial evidence or corroboration for the prosecution's claims, questioning the fairness and justice of the case.