Donald Trump's Defense Might Work—Here's Why

Donald Trump may be able to successfully argue that he was unaware of any scheme to hide hush money payments in his company records, a legal expert has said.

In a series of posts on X, formerly Twitter, former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason said that Trump's lawyers may have a good case to suggest that the former president did not know about an apparent scheme to list hush money Michael Cohen paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels as "legal fees" ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors argue the payment was part of a plot to suppress stories about Trump before the election and, therefore, amounts to illegal campaign contributions.

Eliason suggested that this may be Trump's "best possible defense" in the falsifying business records trial, "and it's far from crazy" while giving several reasons why it could raise reasonable doubt in the jury.

Newsweek reached out to Trump's legal team for comment via email.

Eliason made the remarks in the wake of two Trump Organization employees testifying during the New York trial on Monday about how Cohen was reimbursed for the $130,000 he paid Daniels and that Trump personally signed multiple checks to pay back his former lawyer.

"Remember, it's not enough for the DA just to show that the documents were false or that Trump signed the checks to Cohen," Eliason wrote. "They have to show that at the time the payments were made, Trump personally knew the records were false, and that he caused them to be entered in the records of his company with intent to defraud, including the intent to cover up another crime, at the time the false records were made."

Eliason said that the defense may argue that Trump was a "busy guy" in 2016 as he was the CEO of a company while running for president and that Cohen and Trump Organization's Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg were the ones who "cooked up" the plan to pay off Daniels.

This could be backed up by the testimony from former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, who discussed Weisselberg "grossing up" the payment for Cohen to $420,000 to cover taxes.

"This all could have been done between Weisselberg and Cohen. Trump's fingerprints aren't on it," Eliason posted.

McConney also testified that Trump never personally directed him to log Cohen's payments as legal expenses, and Weisselberg never said that's how they would be listed in company records.

"But Trump signed the checks! Yes, but he's a busy guy," Eliason added. "If Weisselberg or his sons or other trusted advisors tell him these are for Cohen's legal services, he'll sign what they put in front of him. That doesn't prove he knew the details of the scheme or the false records.

"This is why the DA has brought out evidence from [former Trump aide Hope] Hicks and others about Trump being a micromanager, involved in every little detail of his business and campaign. They want to undercut the suggestion that he may not have known the details of the scheme."

Eliason adds that the prosecution will have to heavily rely on the testimony from Cohen, who has already been convicted for lying under oath in a separate case.

"So depending on what other evidence the DA has, the defense may be in a position to argue that on the crucial question of Trump's intent, it all comes down to Cohen, and he can't be believed for many reasons," Eliason posted.

However, Eliason adds that the defense the former president was unaware of what the payments were for may not be "particularly persuasive," and he still believes it is "likely Trump ends up being convicted" in the trial.

"But it's not a frivolous defense. It's definitely what I'd be arguing," Eliason wrote. "It's the defense's best shot at raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror."

Elsewhere, Jerry H. Goldfeder, an election and campaign finance lawyer, described how the evidence heard during Monday's proceedings in New York "authenticated the fabricated business records that were at the heart of the cover up" of the Daniels hush-money payment.

"After the 10,000-foot narrative of the last two weeks about the catch-and-kill plan to hide Trump's conduct from the voters, the jury got to see the checks and invoices in black and white," Goldfeder previously told Newsweek.