Answers to queries about Trump’s illegal payment court case

Journalists from The Hill discussing former President Trump’s criminal trial for illegal payments, provided responses to questions about the ongoing case in New York.

Trump is being tried for 34 charges of altering business records related to illegal payment deals made during his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has declared his innocence and denied any misconduct.

Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee covered a variety of topics, from the atmosphere in the courtroom to the main aspects of the case.

Chosen responses from the “Ask me anything” are as follows:

Question: Did [Stormy Daniels’s] testimony actually hurt Trump’s defense?

Answer: Hello, this is Ella, Stormy Daniels’s testimony could have aided or hindered Trump’s defense.

A few moments were potentially damaging. Daniels stated that she chose to publicize her story in 2016 because, with Trump standing for public office, she hoped the financial trail would act as protection.

Her statement connected the illegal payment scheme to Trump’s 2016 campaign, which is what prosecutors need to elevate the usual misdemeanor charges of falsifying business records to the felony level Trump is accused of.

Her testimony also generally presented Trump in a negative manner. If jurors are persuaded that Trump needed to conceal his actions to secure the 2016 election, it could also support the prosecution’s case.

Her testimony could also potentially benefit Trump’s defense. Defense lawyers aimed to depict her as motivated by money and inconsistent in her account. Throughout her testimony, jurors appeared less captivated than with prior witnesses – which might indicate they weren’t as convinced, or influenced, by her statements.

To sum up: It all comes down to how the jury views her credibility as a witness.

For further analysis on day 1 of Stormy Daniels’s initial appearance on the witness stand: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4639359-stormy-daniels-trump-hush-money-trial-takes-stand/

Question: If Trump were imprisoned, would the Secret Service be required to safeguard him while incarcerated? What would his imprisonment be like? Has this ever occurred before?

Answer:  Hello, it’s Zach! This has not happened previously where a sitting or former U.S. President has been jailed. Therefore, we would be in uncharted territory, and no one knows for certain.

It would definitely be an exceptional situation. There have been some reports from various sources indicating that the Secret Service and other agencies have discussed what that might entail, but there is no concrete plan that we are aware of. There is no protocol like the secret funeral plans for Queen Elizabeth, also known as “London Bridge”. However, we are not yet fully aware of potential plans if this were to occur. some Trump receives Secret Service protection for life, even if he is convicted. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chaired the House Jan. 6 Committee, recently introduced a bill that would remove Secret Service protection from convicted felons (

click here for more reporting on this from my colleague, National Security Reporter Rebecca Beitsch!). I believe this is unlikely to advance with Republicans controlling the House.I’ll also mention that New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) was asked this week if Rikers Island was prepared in case Trump was imprisoned.

“In this line of work, especially in law enforcement, we have to adapt to whatever comes our way,” Adams stated. But we don’t want to deal with a hypothetical situation. But they’re professionals, they’ll be prepared.”

Did you hear Trump using strong language during the Stormy Daniels testimony? If so, what did he say?

Question: Hello, it’s Ella! I was seated about four rows behind where Trump was sitting, I did not hear him using strong language during Daniels’ testimony. However, I don’t doubt it to be true.

Answer: The courtroom is about the size of a basketball court, and Trump sits with his back to reporters. Also in between reporters and the former president are several law enforcement officers and members of his entourage, which this week has included his son, Eric, and his legal spokeswoman Alina Habba.

The judge pulled Trump’s lawyers to his bench to discuss the matter privately, so he certainly heard Trump’s remarks. We don’t know if the jury – or Daniels – heard them, too.

I can say that at previous trials I’ve covered where Trump was in attendance, it was not uncommon for him to mumble remarks under his breath or shake his head in disapproval. He was warned by both his civil fraud trial Judge Arthur Engoron and Judge Lewis Kaplan overseeing writer E. Jean Carroll’s case for behaving similarly.

Why do you and others who publish about it keep referring to this as a “hush money” trial when it’s really about election interference? Could that many people be trying to make it sound less serious than it is, or do news outlets have limited imaginations and vocabularies?

Question: Hi this is Zach, I’ve tended to refer to this case as the “hush money case” in headlines and the beginning of stories because when I’ve heard from readers (as well as when friends ask me about it), that’s the name they know it by.

Answer: When I say “election interference” case, people usually assume I’m talking about Trump’s indictments in D.C. or Georgia. That being said, as you allude to, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) in recent months has tried to shift the narrative to election interference.

Some of that seems to be a realization that Trump’s other criminal cases are unlikely to go to trial before the election, so Bragg’s case is now jumping out in front. But Trump, unlike in those other cases, isn’t actually charged with any election law violations here. So we’ve kept with “hush money” to use as shorthand in headlines and then explain Bragg’s “election interference” narrative throughout our stories.

How many more stern warnings do you think Merchan will issue before Trump wins the presidential election?

Question: Ella here – I think you’re referring to Judge Juan Merchan’s remarks regarding Trump’s repeated violations of the gag order. Trump is barred from making public comments about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff or the judge’s family, but can still attack Merchan and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

Answer: Last time Merchan warned Trump, he was pretty clear about where he stands. The judge said that the “last thing” he wants to do is put Trump in jail and noted his standing as the former president. However, he also said that, at the end of the day, he has a “job to do” and that continued attacks would constitute a “direct attack on the rule of law”.

I was present in the courtroom when Merchan scolded Trump and his lawyers, and the sense I got was that this was a final warning. However, the decision of whether to continue just scolding and fining Trump as opposed to putting him in jail is something only Merchan can decide.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4638607-judge-trump-gag-order/
Did Trump post and then delete his tweet about Stormy Daniels before or after this last, really very stern warning? Was it discussed in court at all, or ignored since he immediately deleted it, which is now being talked about as much as it would have been if he hadn't deleted it?

Question: Hi, this is Zach! To provide some context for those who may not know about the post, Trump posted something on Truth Social the morning of Stormy Daniels’ testimony, which was quickly deleted. Here’s the post:

Answer: “I have just recently been informed who the witness is today. This is unprecedented, no time for lawyers to prepare. No Judge has ever run a trial in such a biased and partisan way. He is CROOKED & HIGHLY CONFLICTED, even taking away my First Amendment Rights. Now he’s threatening me with JAIL, & THEY HAVE NO CASE – This according to virtually all Legal Scholars & Experts! Why isn’t the Fake News Media reporting his conflict?”

Regarding your query: it was the morning after the stern warning. The now-deleted post has not been discussed in court yet, but it’s possible prosecutors will raise an issue with it later this week.

If they do, I think Trump’s lawyers will argue that his post doesn’t specifically mention Daniels by name and that he isn’t directly attacking her (compared to some of his past gag order violations where he outright called her a sleazebag, etc.)

We’ll definitely be keeping an eye on this when the court reconvenes on Thursday and Friday.

Do you think that Trump’s behavior could lead to an appeal based on the inadequate defense provided by his attorneys? I can totally believe that Trump truly feels that the entire legal system is against him, that a gag order prevents him from testifying, and that simply repeatedly calling something a “legal expense” actually makes it so. But I can also see it as very likely that he’ll blame his attorneys as he always does and argue that they failed to provide sufficient counsel.

Question: Hi! This is Zach, thanks for the question. There’s a lot to unpack here, so here are a few thoughts:

Answer: Trump does have some highly respected attorneys in this case. Susan Necheles, one of them, is a long-time defense lawyer who at one point served as president of the New York Council of Defense Lawyers. Even the legal observers/commentators I speak to who consistently criticize Trump generally praise Necheles. Todd Blanche, Trump’s other lead attorney, is a former federal prosecutor. He left a large international law firm to represent Trump, so he’s essentially staking his career on representing the former president.

It’s a tough argument to claim inadequate defense, especially when you’re talking about lawyers with their backgrounds, so it’s difficult to see that working out

That said, Trump is not afraid to criticize his lawyers after a big loss, and sometimes makes changes in his team at important times. Three recent examples I want to emphasize, with links to more details on each:

(1) Trump replaced his top Georgia lawyer the day he gave up

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4168988-trump-replaces-top-attorney-in-georgia-case/
(2) one of Trump’s lawyers left after the former president became frustrated with his handling of the E. Jean Carroll civil lawsuits
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4409344-trump-lawyer-joe-tacopina-withdraws-from-ex-presidents-cases/
(3) Trump made changes to his classified documents team after being charged
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4042432-trump-shakes-up-legal-team-in-documents-case-after-indictment/So now the question is, will Blanche and Necheles stay if things don’t go well for Trump in this trial?

How has security been in and around the courthouse during the trial?

Question: This is Ella! Security is strict in and around the courthouse.

Answer: To enter the courthouse, reporters who plan to be in the courtroom need to arrive a few hours before the trial starts to wait in a line where they sign in with law enforcement and court staff before going in. Reporters and members of the public trying to get into the overflow room – or, if there are extra seats, the courtroom – wait in a separate line to go through a similar process.

Everyone goes through two security checkpoints, where we walk through metal detectors, bags are checked, and drinks that aren’t water are thrown away. The screening process takes about 20 minutes on a good day.

Inside the courtroom, the gallery is lined with law enforcement officers and secret service sit near the front, behind where Trump sits. Phones are not allowed in the courtroom, but reporters can have computers out to do their work.

Outside the courtroom, the streets are blocked by gates and law enforcement. Passersby are asked to walk around the barricaded area, though the park outside where everyone enters is open to the public

I haven’t seen anyone analyze how prosecutors used their preemptive jury strikes, even though they clearly used all of their available strikes. Without giving identifying information on any jury members, can you help us understand who the prosecution thought it was worth striking from the jury, even if the judge thought they were fit to serve?.

Question:  For example, it seems like the defense used their strikes on people who they’d found posted anti-Trump jokes on Facebook. Did the prosecution go for people who had posted pro-Trump content?

Hi, it’s Zach! I sat in for the week of jury selection. As each prospective juror was being questioned, Trump’s lawyers quickly reviewed their social media profiles to try to find any opinionated posts about Trump. So, yes, they were clearly trying to remove anyone who posted anti-Trump content.

Answer: Prosecutors, however, weren’t really looking up old social media posts. They seemed to be trying to eliminate people who appeared likely to be a holdout in the deliberations. Remember, all 12 jurors must unanimously agree to convict Trump, so prosecutors’ concern is not just that they’ll vote to acquit, but also a lone holdout will cause a hung jury.

Two examples to show this, one from each side:

Trump’s team removed a potential juror who had posted videos on Facebook of cars honking in celebration in New York City when Joe Biden was announced as the winner of the 2020 election.
Prosecutors removed a potential juror who works in law enforcement and spoke loudly and forcefully in the courtroom. He made it clear he gets his news from the NY Daily News and the New York Post (he also mentioned he still uses a flip phone).

gets his news from the NY Daily News and the New York Post (he also told the lawyers he still uses a flip phone). only I’m also curious about Trump’s behavior in the court. Was he worried? Was he smug? Did he roll his eyes? Like, give us some color.

Question: Did he actually fall asleep?
Hi, this is Ella! More than anything, Trump seems annoyed to be there and, at times, pretty angry about it. He’s perfected a stony expression he wears when entering the courtroom, usually looking straight ahead but sometimes watching reporters or sketch artists. I saw him smile at one artist’s sketch as he was coming in earlier this week. On his way out, he’s usually scanning the gallery, sometimes locking eyes with reporters.

Answer: During testimony, his behavior varies. Sometimes he seems sleepy and flips through printed-out articles that seem intended to keep him engaged. Other times, he’s alert, watching testimony closely and whispering about it with his lawyers. Yesterday, when Stormy Daniels testified, was one of those days.

As for his reported courtroom naps, Trump has denied falling asleep. But he does spend a lot of court time with his eyes closed.

This case has been ongoing for weeks now and it seems like little progress has been made. How much longer do you think the case will continue? How many more witnesses are expected to testify? Is Trump going to take the stand?

Question: Hi, It’s Ella. Believe it or not, things are actually moving along at a solid pace. Stormy Daniels is the thirteenth witness to testify in the trial, and all parties agree that they’re on schedule – if not ahead of it. Prosecutors said yesterday they have about two weeks left in their case, and then it’s just a matter of Trump’s team putting on their defense, if they choose to.

Answer: That puts the case on track to reach the jury towards the end of May or beginning of June.

With regards to how many more witnesses are expected to testify? No formal witness list has been released, so it’s hard to know exactly. But we can make some educated guesses.
Potential witnesses including Gina Rodriguez, Stormy Daniels’s manager, and Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s director of Oval Office operations at the White House, could take the stand before the state’s case is over. Michael Cohen is expected to testify as well and will likely be on the witness stand for several days.

In Trump’s defense case, family members, business associates, and White House aides could take the stand.

As for him possibly taking the stand, it would be a rare move for a criminal defendant to testify in their own defense, and jurors have sworn not to hold it against Trump if he chooses not to. Legal experts are also wary of the former president testifying, though the decision is ultimately Trump’s to make.

Reporters from The Hill who are covering the criminal case involving former President Trump's hush money took time to respond to inquiries about the trial taking place in New York. Trump is currently being tried for 34 charges related to altering business records in relation to hush money agreements made during his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has declared his innocence and denied any misconduct. The reporters involved are Zach Schonfeld and Ella…