'Did they pay her?' Legal expert uncovers 'what’s at the heart' of Trump hush money case

On Monday, April 15, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's criminal case against former President Donald Trump will begin trial.

The New York Times noted earlier this week:

Bragg’s legal argument is complicated, but it stems from a simple episode: In the days before the 2016 election, Trump’s personal attorney and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush money to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors argue that Trump, who denies that he had sex with Daniels, then lied on 34 business records — 12 ledger entries, 11 invoices and 11 checks — to disguise his repayment of Cohen as legal fees.

MSNBC host Katie Tur spoke with legal correspondent Lisa Rubin Thursday, April 11 about a few arguments Trump and his lawyers have argued ahead of trial.

READ MORE: Watch: Ex-SCOTUS lawyer 'strongly suspects' Trump will 'be convicted' in hush money trial

"Let me ask you about Stormy Daniels," Tur said. "The Trump team is trying to take a hit at her credibility, saying that she's not a victim in this. Does it matter whether she's a victim in this? Is that what's at heart of DA Bragg's charges?"

Rubin replied, "Whether or not the relations between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump were consensual, is really not what's at the heart of this. They're going to try and distract the jury and paint her as some sort of an extortionist. But what's really at issue here is, did they pay her? Were they concerned about what story she could tell? Not whether the relationship, in fact, happened, but did they pay her? And then did they essentially use business documents to cover up what was an illegally campaign contribution?"

The MSNBC host said, "The trial starts on Monday, we're going to start with jury selection, that should take a little time at least," noting, "Donald Trump has been trying to argue immunity. That was shut down by Judge Merchan, right?"

Rubin replied, "Yes, but he's not trying to argue immunity in the same way he is in Judge Chutkan's case. Here, what he's trying to say, is because he was president, when he issued communications, namely tweets from the White House, those are 'official acts' and therefore, including them among the evidence is precluded by presidential immunity."

READ MORE: Ex-federal prosecutor: Trump 'looks increasingly desperate' as hush money trial draws closer

Tur then asked, "What about signing a check while president, does that make him immune in his mind?

The former litigator emphasized, "Not clear. Not part of what he argued in the motion papers, at least from what I remember. But could that be part of their argument? It sure could be."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Did they pay her?' Legal expert gets to 'what’s at the heart' of Trump hush money caseyoutu.be