Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg must be prohibited from using the “fanciful and elaborate narrative” that his case is an election interference case.
The district attorney has charged President Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, but the rhetoric surrounding the case has extended beyond the actual charges.
“The People must attempt to try the case they charged, not the case the District Attorney fantasized about when he was on the campaign trail,” reads a Feb. 29 filing that was made public after redactions on March 6.
The charges are related to record entries that show payments President Trump made to Michael Cohen in 2017.
At the time, Mr. Cohen was President Trump’s personal attorney and later made claims that the then-candidate asked him to pay off an adult actress alleging an affair, leading to the district attorney’s investigation.
Mr. Bragg has described the case, including in court filings, as one targeting an “underlying conspiracy” to “influence the 2016 election.”
Prosecutors seek to enter into evidence various actions by individuals, including media articles part of a “scheme to defraud,” sexual assault allegations, and citations to the 2016 Mueller report [Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election], that defense attorneys argue have nothing to do with the charges.
“Applicable evidentiary rules and related caselaw preclude the People from presenting their fantasy case, as opposed to the narrow business records case they charged,” defense attorneys argued.
Prosecutors had sought to prevent the defense from cross-examining Mr. Cohen on several issues, which the defense opposed in the filing.
Cohen’s Credibility
Prosecutors requested to omit evidence related to Mr. Cohen’s credibility as irrelevant, but the defense argued that Mr. Cohen has a history of lying in court and they “must be permitted to confront Cohen with his lies ... so that the jury can assess—and reject—his anticipated testimony that he somehow felt threatened by President Trump.”Mr. Cohen had pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 2019, but federal prosecutors had reported “substantial concerns about Cohen’s credibility,” noting that he “lied” to prosecutors on multiple occasions and “repeatedly declined to provide full information.”
After entering the plea bargain, Mr. Cohen then said in multiple public statements that he “lied” in taking that plea bargain and wrote that his tax charges were “100 percent inaccurate.”
“Less than six months later, Cohen committed perjury at a trial where President Trump was a defendant,” defense attorneys argued. During that trial, Mr. Cohen also said he “lied” during his plea bargain. He also backtracked in his testimony about President Trump’s actions in that civil fraud case.
“President Trump is entitled to cross-examine Cohen on these issues,” the filing reads.
The prosecution and defense also disagree on whether Bradley Smith, former FEC chairman, should be allowed to testify.
Prosecutors allege that President Trump’s payments via Mr. Cohen were “illegal campaign contributions” and the defense argues they were not.
Attorneys Urge Court to Avoid Prejudice
In other recent court filings, defense attorneys have urged the court to avoid prejudice in opposing the prosecutors’ request for some protective orders.One of these witnesses will be Mr. Cohen, who has spoken at length about President Trump’s legal woes in media appearances.
Defense attorneys reminded the judge that he had already declined to issue a gag order once, citing the importance of protecting political speech at the height of the campaign season.
“The Court should take precautions to minimize potential prejudice to President Trump resulting from the protective order,” his attorneys wrote.
