With the defense and prosecution rested, the jury in the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump -- for his role in hush money payments made before the 2016 election to women who said they had affairs with him -- could begin deliberating after closing arguments, which get underway on May 28.
We have continued to get questions from readers about the trial. CNN's Laura Coates frequently reads some of them on CNN in the 11 p.m. ET hour.
The tenor of the questions has changed during the course of the trial, and many have gotten specific to elements of the arguments. Clearly, people are paying attention.
Most of the questions come directly from reader submissions, but for others, I've taken the liberty of simplifying multiple submissions into one question. Trump, by the way, denies having the affairs and has pleaded not guilty in the case.
Why didn't they subpoena Allen Weisselberg? I know he's in Rikers and will not testify.
This is ultimately a question of strategy. But testimony in previous proceedings has not gone well for Weisselberg, the former, longtime chief financial officer for the Trump Organization.
He is currently indisposed at Rikers Island, a prison in New York, where he's serving time for admitting to perjury in the civil fraud trial that ended in a more than $400 million judgement against Trump for inflating his net worth to get friendly loan terms.
Prosecutors told Judge Juan Merchan they did not attempt to compel Weisselberg's testimony in this trial even though he played a crucial role in payments to Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen. Defense lawyers said Weisselberg was not available to either side for testimony and would likely invoke his Fifth Amendment rights if called. Look for jurors to be given instructions about how to view testimony they heard about Weisselberg.
It seems that Trump is the only person who could've authorized the doctoring of the financial records, though there's no 'smoking gun' as I understand the term. How strong was the evidence presented in court?
There is strong evidence that the campaign was in a state of panic after the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape in 2016. There is strong evidence from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker about the desire to help Trump's campaign by finding and neutralizing damaging stories. It's clear that Cohen organized payments for Stormy Daniels, a woman who claimed an affair with Trump, and that he took out a loan to make them happen.
But Cohen is the only witness who said that Trump specifically made payments to Cohen to reimburse him for the payments to Daniels. Jurors will have to believe Cohen, an admitted liar and felon, that the payments were improper reimbursement and not simply lawyer fees.
Is a unanimous guilty verdict required for Trump to be convicted in this case, or could he be convicted by a majority of seven jurors voting 'guilty'?
A unanimous vote is required for either conviction or acquittal. Anything short of a unanimous verdict would be a hung jury. The judge will try very hard to get the jury to reach a unanimous verdict.
A hung jury might be perceived as a net win for Trump since prosecutors would have to ponder whether to try him again on the same charges and there's little chance it would happen before Election Day.
Where is Melania?
The former first lady has not attended any of her husband's criminal trial, although many of Trump's political allies – senators, House members and more – have shown their support by attending some of the arguments.
Trump's son with Melania, Barron Trump, graduated from high school in Florida during the trial and the judge canceled arguments that day so that the former president could attend the ceremony. Given that the trial included testimony from Daniels about her alleged affair – which Trump has denied – it is perhaps not surprising that Melania Trump would decide not to attend the proceedings.
When Trump became president, he was supposed to let others take over his businesses and run them. His duty was to run the US government. How is it he was signing checks on his business accounts to Cohen, Daniels and others?
First, Trump never signed a check to Daniels, and that is a major element of the case. Cohen engineered the hush money payment when he could not get the National Enquirer to foot the bill. Cohen took out a line of credit on his apartment to come up with the cash. Trump's payments to Cohen after Trump won the White House were, according to Cohen, to pay him back for the Daniels payments, plus a bonus, and for other things like a bogus poll Cohen engineered.
Second, Trump did claim to give up control of the Trump Organization to his adult sons, Eric and Donald Jr., when he was in the White House. But the arrangement was universally criticized by ethics experts. Trump maintained his ownership stake in the business.
Some of his payments to Cohen were made from accounts associated with the trust set up to hold the Trump Organization while Trump was president. Other payments were made from a personal bank account, but all the payments were processed by the Trump Organization, according to prosecutors.
Lots of presidents have had extramarital relationships. Many were probably paid off. Why do we care this time?
Trump isn't technically accused of having an affair, which he denies and which is not illegal. The hush money itself, represented by a contract between two parties, is not necessarily illegal either. Hush money was paid by the Trump-supporting publisher of the National Enquirer to the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, and, separately, it was paid by Cohen to Daniels.
But in this case, the payments, which were intended to hide details from voters before the 2016 election, violated campaign finance law. National Enquirer's parent company admitted wrongdoing, and Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign law and served time in prison.
Federal prosecutors, as a matter of Department of Justice policy, were unable to prosecute Trump for the payments when he was president and decided not to bring charges after he left office. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg then brought this case. Trump is accused of falsifying business records (a New York state crime) in an effort to use illegal campaign contributions to influence the 2016 campaign (a federal crime).
Did the prosecutor connect the hush money case to interference with the 2016 presidential election?
Yes. This is an important element of the case. Falsifying business records in New York is a misdemeanor. The felony charge here is falsifying business records to further another crime. And this is where the case against Trump gets unique. The other crime is a campaign finance violation to which Cohen has already pleaded guilty. It is a state crime made a felony by furthering a federal crime.
Federal prosecutors, by the way, decided not to pursue charges against Trump with regard to the campaign finance violation.
Jurors heard testimony about how nervous Trump's campaign was after the "Access Hollywood" tape was published and they desperately wanted to tamp down on any unflattering stories. Trump's defense is that he did not want the Daniels story to be published because he wanted to keep the information from his wife.
Could he be president from prison?
This is a great and essentially unanswerable hypothetical. First, it assumes multiple things will occur: Trump would have to be convicted, sentenced, exhaust appeals, report to prison and win the election. That's a very specific scenario thrust upon a very unpredictable set of circumstances and a short timeline.
I talked to Frank Bowman, a law professor emeritus at the University of Missouri who is both an expert in criminal law and published a book on the impeachment process, for his thoughts on how to deal with a convict president. The Constitution, he said, theoretically allows a person to serve "even if he's a convicted felon or even if he's a convicted felon in the joint."
Timing, however, would get in the way of this hypothetical ever occurring. "This stuff takes a long time, and the appeals would drag out," probably beyond Election Day and Inauguration Day, Bowman said.
It's also possible Trump's opponents, after a conviction, could try again to either impeach him or object to his presidency based on the 14th Amendment, although those avenues have been tried and failed previously.
If somehow Trump was convicted in this state case, Bowman imagined there could be some argument by which the Constitution's Supremacy Clause – which prohibits states from interfering in the exercise of constitutional powers – could be utilized to keep Trump from state prison. But it would be a novel thing.
If, on the other hand, Trump was somehow convicted in one of his two federal trials and sentenced to federal prison, as president he could theoretically try to pardon himself or order the Bureau of Prisons to do something like confine him at the White House. Again, this is uncharted territory that is unanticipated in US law and, Bowman argues, unlikely to occur.
