The Power of Money & Influence: Will Trump, Weinstein or the American People Pay the Ultimate Price?

Justice is Not Blind - it Sees the Color of Money Quite Well

May 09, 2024

100 U.S. dollar banknote lot — Photo by Mackenzie Marco on Unsplash

One question I ask myself repeatedly:

Could the Weinstein New York Appeals Court Ruling Influence the Trump Hush-Money Election Fraud Case?

The recent New York Appeals Court ruling overturning Weinstein’s rape and sexual assault convictions may have implications for Trump’s multi-tiered “Hush Money/Election Fraud/Tax Fraud/Business Records Fraud case in New York. Just like Weinstein’s case, the Trump case is also subject to the required Sandoval hearings circumscribing the scope and parameters of evidence presented. Because of the recent New York Appeals Court ruling overturning Weinstein’s New York conviction, Judge Merchan, presiding there over the “Hush Money” case, may think twice before allowing Trump’s former mistress, Karen McDougal to testify at trial.

Prior Bad Act May Prevent McDougal Testimony

Not only is McDougal ‘not’ a party to the “Hush Money/Stormy Daniels case,” McDougal was previously paid “hush money” for her own Trump ‘mistress’ story by AMI (National Inquirer) and its CEO David Pecker, and not by Trump himself, nor his attorney Michael Cohen. Because her testimony would potentially make her a “prior bad act witness” to impeach Trump’s denials of any extramarital affairs, it would have no bearing on the substantive FEC violations at all. The reason: she was paid by AMI’s CEO David Pecker, and neither AMI nor Pecker were reimbursed. Although it could be argued that AMI was working for Trump, the money trail ends there, as AMI’s CEO Pecker, was stiffed by Trump and never repaid. Nevertheless, such extraneous testimony by McDougal could potentially set up an appeal for Trump – if he is found guilty of crimes as alleged in his 34 count felony indictment - something no prosecutor should ever want to risk.

When Spreadsheets Can Get You a Cell of Your Own

As we all know, Trump is on trial for campaign violations for intentionally falsifying business records - that is the $130k payment to buy Stormy’s silence, couched as “legal expenses” he paid to to his lawyer Michael Cohen - who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations - earning him three years in jail. Because the amount paid to keep Stormy quiet - was well above the Federal Election Commission (FEC) limits of $2k set for that year, those involved not only violated Federal Election (FEC) rules when claiming this payment as legal expenses, but broke Federal Campaign Financing law limits and state business records regulations by falsifying supporting ledger recordings as well. Was it just a “bookkeeping error’ - putting the entries in the spreadsheet, in the wrong cells, or something more intentional? It is noteworthy that Trump’s right hand Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Allan Weisselberg, is currently serving time at Rikers Island jail for perjury, and previously did time for tax fraud.

As with any good marketer, Trump sought to bolster his prospects of winning the election in 2016 - to revitalize an already fraught reputation as a result of the release of the Access Hollywood tape and Wall Street references to AMI and McDougal. He sought to “rebrand” his “reputation” as an upstanding business and “family man” to win the 2016 election. So he took the opportunity to quell bad publicity - which included violating FEC rules, and standard accounting practices, a few weeks before November 8th, to make it all happen.

In 2016 the FEC limits on individuals’ contributions to candidates … was set at $2,000, and in 2024 that amount now is $3,300 per election.

Stormy Weather Ahead

For those who don’t know, Stormy Daniels is the adult film actress that he “allegedly” had a consensual “adult encounter” with while married to his current wife Melania in 2006. The facts of this case are relatively simple. Trump paid his personal attorney Michael Cohen, who was acting as an “intermediary” - as his proxy, to pay off Stormy Daniels, calling it “legal expenses” - when it was a payoff to keep her quiet right before the 2016 presidential election - notably, the payoff of Stormy $130k, was well above the (FEC) federal election limits for individual campaign contributions set for that year.

The Road to Campaign Violations - Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Had Trump ‘not’ paid Cohen back for paying Stormy, Trump would have had a better argument that Cohen went rogue and initiated the Stormy payoff on his own volition. The reimbursement to Cohen, plus the substantial bonus for doing so, is quite damning on its own.

The Old Adage, Timing is Everything - Means Everything Here

Because the payoff to Stormy came the week before the 2016 election - there can be no doubt Cohen was attempting to quiet bad press, as the Wall Street Journal was running a story about Trump’s former mistress, former Playboy model Karen McDougal selling her story to the National Inquirer for $150k. That story came out in the Inquirer just four days before the national election. All of this preceded by the Access Hollywood tape where Trump was bragging about sexual assault - that story came out October 7, 2016 - one month before the 2016 election.

Testimony of Prior Bad Act Witness

If McDougal is allowed to testify to her prior affair and coverup as a ‘prior bad act’ witness – this could potentially do for Trump what it did for Weinstein - get any potential guilty verdict thrown out on Appeal. Like Weinstein, Trump would also claim her prior bad act testimony was prejudicial, dissuading him from “testifying” on his own behalf – something he repeatedly “claimed” he wanted to do. This no doubt would garner him sympathy among his supporters, while giving him fodder leading up to the November election, to ask for an expedited appeal.

Reassess and Regroup

In light of this recent New York Appeals Court ruling on prior bad act evidence, it would be wise for Judge Merchan in this case to reassess what was allowed in the Sandoval hearings: whether Karen McDougal is allowed to testify as a prior bad act witness or not. Personally, I do not believe her testimony would add much if any value to the case, as National Inquirer CEO David Pecker, already laid the groundwork for that payment scheme, and in the long run McDougal’s testimony would likely be detrimental to the prosecution if and when there is any appeal.

A Look Toward the Finish Line

There can be no doubt; if Trump is found guilty, the same Appeals Court would hear his case, leading the court to look for prejudice on the same or similar grounds, and overturn any conviction made in the trial court below. That is not an outcome any prosecutor would want, as this case has already taken far too much in legal resources, to get it this far.

Motion for Mistrial

Like any defense attorney who is looking to get their guy off the hook, Trump’s attorneys motioned the Judge to declare a mistrial. That was after Stormy testified, interjecting more information than defense attorney’s sought or were comfortable with hearing, claiming “prejudice” for her extrajudicial statements. As is routine, the defense is looking for any out for their client, and preserving their objections for a later Appeal.

But the judge rightly rejected their Motion, as not only premature, but their complaint was not based on anything substantial - that is compared to the crime of fraud and election interference which is the basis of this case. As is customary, the Judge will likely issue a curative instruction for the jury at the end of the trial, instructing them to disregard any extraneous comments or statements that were made, contravening the reputation of defendant Trump that should not enter into their deliberations. Yet, this is all ceremonial, as Trump’s reputation precedes him, nothing Stormy could say or do would change that dynamic. He is not only a woman abuser, a three-time adulterer, a tax cheat, and libeler - to that point, evidence is plenary.

Benefit of the Doubt

You might ask, why would an Appeals court give a serial predator like Weinstein or a serial grifter like Trump the benefit of the doubt? How Trump could accumulate so many contempt citations, yet not be in jail? Or why would the Judge overseeing national security documents in Florida, push out the case with no date in sight? Could it be because as a Trump appointee, she doesn’t want it heard before the next election, or anytime this year? Or why is the US Supreme Court weighing in on whether Trump has “absolute” immunity for prosecution, just because he once held the nation’s highest office? It seems the way immunity has worked since Richard Nixon held office, has served this nation quite well…

At the same time we can ask, Why did the New York Appeals court give Weinstein a reprieve - another chance to traumatize multiple victims yet again, by virtue of another go-around at trial? Requiring victims to once again face their abuser, relive their trauma yet again? It is not an easy feat to testify against your abuser, as it brings the trauma full circle, as if it were happening again… In the case of Weinstein, literally 80 women claimed he sexually assaulted and raped them – there should be no question as to his guilt. So why does this institutional victimization take place? Where the perpetrator is given multiple opportunities to revictimize his victims, whose dignity should be restored by a guilty verdict and allowed to move on?

Money and Power Make All the Difference

One thing is for certain: holding rich and powerful men accountable is a feat in itself. The system is rigged in favor of those with resources such as money, power and connections. If it were to be made a fair and just as its namesake “the justice system” portends - these men would be dislodged from their money, made to pay restitution to their victims, and would be entitled to have one lawyer, just like every other criminal defendant - not troves of lawyers working in concert, angling for any defense.

As I’ve said before, had any of these men been poor, destitute or persons of color, they would hardly get any reprieve. But because the system is rigged in favor of rich, powerful and connected men – inequality of justice is apparently the only system we’ve got. And as long as there is no limit to money in politics that ultimately influence the courts through elections - thanks to the US Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United – it will remain off balance for the foreseeable future.

Supreme Leader

We cannot forget it is the same Supreme Court who is now angling to give sweeping immunity to presidents like Trump - those who create chaos and try to overturn elections, interfere with legislation, and the inner-workings of government. But as long as the three branches of government do not reign in those going rogue - those with power and money will run roughshod over our institutions and the citizens who sustain them. If we continue on the trajectory we are on: that power and money are the means to the end, that presidents can manipulate courts with impunity, incarcerate their rivals, and not be held accountable: democracy will fail, victims will never be made whole - and our system of justice and nation will implode on itself.

In the end, tyranny can only be put to rest by the Will of the people - if only enough people have the Will to stand up!

The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News

Discussion about this post