Donald Trump revealed on Monday his intention to utilize an advice-of-counsel defense in the false business records case, albeit in a nuanced way. This came about when he was required to clarify whether his plan was to attribute the cover-up of a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, disguised as legal fees paid to Michael Cohen, to his legal advisors.
Trump’s defense did not directly lay blame on his lawyers but instead inferred their involvement, stating “President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits notice concerning his intent to rely on the defense of advice-of-counsel at trial.” A distinction was made, asserting that Trump’s expected trial defense should not be confused with the conventional advice-of-counsel defense.
The crux of their argument suggests that Trump doesn’t necessarily need to waive attorney-client privilege – a normally required step if he planned to ascribe fault to his lawyers. Rather, his defense seems to revolve around the claim of lacking the necessary intent to commit the alleged actions as he was made aware that multiple lawyers were involved in the actions leading to the charges. Effectively, Trump appears to present a “lawyer-in-the-room” defense, claiming that the involvement and preparation of documents by legal professionals led him to believe the actions were aboveboard.
Reports suggest that the defense strategy might call on Michael Cohen to testify regarding Trump’s understanding of the payment plot. Trump’s current counsel argue that Trump only consented to disguise the $130,000 Daniels payout as legal fees due to the involvement and advice of lawyers at significant points leading to the indictment charges.
However, there are intricacies to consider. Cohen recently testified in the civil fraud trial, portraying Trump as using coded language to instruct his subordinates in executing covert tasks. Despite this, and the claim by Trump that Cohen is a perjurer, it appears the defense team believes that Cohen may play a crucial role in Trump’s defense.
Trump refuses to take questions asserting that, at this point, there is no reason for a preview of their defense strategies at trial to be demanded. To the casual observer, this may appear as an attempt to scapegoat his lawyers without explicitly stating whether they advised him that the scheme was legal. As this case unfolds, it will be illuminating to see how this strategy is received by Justice Juan Merchan.
For a more comprehensive coverage of these developments, click here.