'Far from crazy': Expert sees path for Trump to blame sons and allies for hush money crime

A legal expert says Trump’s lawyers have stumbled on a defense that is the former president’s ‘best shot” at avoiding conviction at his hush money trial.

Former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason wrote it involves the ex-president throwing his business allies and sons under the boss.

The "best bet" for acquittal is for Trump to argue he’s too busy to know where his money is going — and that he trusts that his children and right-hand businessmen are keeping track of it, Eliason said on X.

“It’s the best possible defense,” he wrote, adding that “It’s far from crazy.”

Trump is on trial for business fraud involving hush money payments made to an adult movie star paid to cover up a sexual relationship before the 2016 election.

Two Trump Organization employees testified Monday that the money was paid by Cohen, and Trump repaid him with a check he signed from his personal account.

ALSO READ: ‘Lord of the Flies’: Inside MTG’s effort to oust Speaker Mike Johnson

"Remember, it's not enough for the DA just to show that the documents were false or that Trump signed the checks to Cohen," wrote Eliason. "They have to show that at the time the payments were made, Trump personally knew the records were false, and that he caused them to be entered in the records of his company with intent to defraud, including the intent to cover up another crime, at the time the false records were made."

Eliason said the argument that Trump was a "busy guy" could push the responsibility onto then-lawyer Michael Cohen and Trump Organization's CFO Allen Weisselberg for the plan to payoff Daniels

"This all could have been done between Weisselberg and Cohen. Trump's fingerprints aren't on it," Eliason wrote.

"But Trump signed the checks! Yes, but he's a busy guy. If Weisselberg or his sons or other trusted advisors tell him these are for Cohen's legal services, he'll sign what they put in front of him. That doesn't prove he knew the details of the scheme or the false records.

"This is why the DA has brought out evidence from [former Trump aide Hope] Hicks and others about Trump being a micromanager, involved in every little detail of his business and campaign. They want to undercut the suggestion that he may not have known the details of the scheme.

"So depending on what other evidence the DA has, the defense may be in a position to argue that on the crucial question of Trump's intent, it all comes down to Cohen, and he can't be believed for many reasons.

"... It's not a frivolous defense. It's definitely what I'd be arguing. It's the defense's best shot at raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror."

Recommended Links: